Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

University Foundations

Mrs. White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive further proposals of the University Grants Committee on new university foundations.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I hope to make a statement on this matter shortly.

Mrs. White: We are delighted to hear that, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as the estimates of the number of places required at universities are probably lower than many people think are required, the earliest possible decision is needed on these new foundations?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, certainly. I quite agree with the hon. Lady about an early decision, but the detailed proposals reached us only on Friday. I will try to make a statement as quickly as I can.

Surtax

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the approximate total amounts accruing to the following classes of Surtax payers as a result of the new Surtax relief, namely, Government scientists, scientists employed in industry, business executives directly concerned with export trades, other business executives, teachers, and university staffs.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This information is not available.

Mr. Boyden: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know these

facts, how does he think that his Budget proposals will encourage the development of scientific achievement and the export trade?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's Question contains a comprehensive list, but information is not available dividing each category from the other. I think that the generality are all affected by my proposals.

Decimal Currency System

Mr. du Cann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has further considered the proposal to introduce a decimal currency system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot at present add anything to the reply which my hon. Friend received on 16th February.

Mr. du Cann: In view of the international character of sterling, in view of the fact that many Commonwealth countries have already made the change, and in view of the fact that it now seems that much opinion in the United Kingdom is also in favour of the change, will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House whether he regards this as a Commonwealth matter and is therefore consulting the other Commonwealth countries? Further, when does he think he will be in a position to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. Lloyd: On the Commonwealth aspects, I said in answer to a previous Question that the consequences of South Africa's decision are being observed. We are in touch with both the Australian and New Zealand Governments. I am doing my best to accelerate our consideration of this matter.

Sir T. Moore: Are we then to lose our old friends the ell, the rood and the perch if this proposal is accepted?

Mr. Lloyd: That is another matter.

Trustee Investments

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to support the gilt-edged market when the Trustee Investments Bill comes into effect.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It is a well-established rule not to disclose the intentions of the authorities with respect to future official operations in the gilt-edged market.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any estimate of the amount of gilt-edged stocks which may be coming on to the market in the next few months as a result of trustee sales? Does he agree that it may be in the region of £300 million? If that is so, is it not probable that there will be a drop in the gilt-edged market of between 5 and 7 points? I appreciate the reasons why we cannot have a declaration of intent from my right hon. and learned Friend, but will he bear this point in mind in his instructions to the Government Broker?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly. I will maintain a close interest in the gilt-edged market. I do not think that the effects will be as great as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Government sales of the steel industry's prior charges had a most distressing effect on the gilt-edged market. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer yet had an opportunity of considering the proposal made by an eminent investment expert which I once asked him across the Floor of the House to consider? The suggestion was that the money which the Government received from the sale of the steel industry's prior charges should be used for the purpose of putting a floor into the gilt-edged market so that there would be no further falls.

Mr. Lloyd: That is a rather different issue from the Question.

Schedule A

Commander Kerans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates will accrue in 1961–62 from Schedule A taxes.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Between £100 million and £115 million.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost would be of exempting from Schedule A tax all owner-occupied houses up to the net annual value of £65.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: About £42 million in a full year. The estimate includes

both Surtax at 1961–62 rates and also the cost of an allowance of £65 for houses whose net annual value is over £65.

Mr. Lipton: That figure does not quite give the answer I want. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should break it up a little more. Would it not be better if, instead of encouraging the property-owning plutocracy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did something for the 2¼ million owner-occupiers who will probably have to pay higher mortgage rates to building societies as a result of the new Profits Tax?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is a question of priorities.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Tory Party believes in a property-owning democracy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—will my right hon. and learned Friend take the earliest possible opportunity to abolish Schedule A tax altogether?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that I have no proposals to that effect to put before the House this year.

National Theatre

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any further communication about the National Theatre from the newly-elected London County Council; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have not yet received any communication about the National Theatre from the newly-elected London County Council.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Chancellor undertake to reconsider the question when he does receive a communication from the L.C.C.? Is he not aware that the L.C.C. has publicly announced it as its intention to build the National Theatre? Does he realise that the Government of the day were made to look very foolish in regard to the new Waterloo Bridge, and will he resist the temptation to get into exactly the same position in regard to the National Theatre?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly try to resist all the temptations that I ought to resist. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, of course, that the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the L.C.C. said that that Committee would


discuss the matter on 15th May. I think that there is to be a council meeting after that, and I expect to get in touch with the L.C.C. after it has had its council meeting; and, of course, I will consider its representations.

United States Service Men (Motor Cars)

Mr. Bollard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much foreign currency he estimates will be lost annually to this country by the recent decision of the United States Government to disallow the sale of British cars on United States bases and the closing of the PX scheme for permitting United States service personnel to acquire British cars on the export quota free of Purchase Tax;

(2) whether, with a view to earning foreign currency, he will ask Customs and Excise to devise a scheme to allow United States service personnel to buy British cars free of Purchase Tax for a period of more than one year prior to export.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The figure for which my hon. Friend asks might be as high at £1½ million. It would depend of course, whether U.S. Service men continued to buy British cars by other means. On the general question, I have written to my hon. Friend on this matter at some length.

Mr. Bullard: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his letter, but does he not think that this loss of currency is a very serious matter? I understand that one Midland manufacturer says that these orders constitute his seventh largest export order. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind the interests of those traders in the North and elsewhere who have built up this sort of business? Will he further represent to the American authorities that communities have to live together and that arbitrarily to cease business in this way is a very serious matter from the relations point of view?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the considerations to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, and we are discussing these aspects with the American authorities.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the trouble to write to his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard)—at some length, as he says—in view of the general interest there is in this matter, would not the Chancellor circulate a copy of that letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that we can all see it?

Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the supplementary answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, he will see there a good deal of the contents of the letter.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether or not, if American Service men buy American cars for delivery in this country, they are subject to import duty and Purchase Tax?

Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.

Members (Press Cuttings Service)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated annual cost of a Press cuttings service to be made available by Her Majesty's Government for the use of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The expense of a Press cutting service varies widely according to its scope and nature. Without a closer definition, it is not possible to estimate the annual cost of a service for the use of Members.

Mr. Allaun: Would not this service be invaluable in keeping Members of Parliament well-informed and up to date, and in ensuring that they do not miss vital news items on important issues? Would the Chancellor consider taking advantage of the fact that the News Chronicle's highly-expert library staff and its cuttings service have been kept going?

Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure that this is a matter so much for me as for the authorities of the House in the first instance, but I shall certainly draw the attention of the authorities to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Irving: Is the Chancellor aware that limited and fragmentary services like this are being maintained in each of the 24 Government Departmental libraries and the library of the Central Office of Information as well as in the


House of Commons' library? Would it not be much more effective, and much cheaper, to maintain a central pool for this service, and would he not look at the proposal I made some time ago about the News Chronicle service?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly will look at it.

Mau-Mau Ceremonies (Document)

Commander Kerans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the majority of the Members of this House have received a printed document purporting to contain the oaths taken by the Mau-Mau in Kenya; and whether Her Majesty's Stationery Office have granted permission to any person to publish extracts from the confidential appendix to Command Paper No. 9081, a Report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies from the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya, 1954, which contained details of Mau-Mau ceremonies.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that a document as described has been circulated to a number of Members. Permission was not sought for the inclusion in the document of extracts from the confidential appendix to Command Paper No. 9081. The authors' claim that the information was obtained from another source is being investigated.

Commander Kerans: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this publication should have a much wider distribution in this country so that, instead of some people raving for the release of Kenyatta, the public should be made aware of what happened in the past?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that that is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies rather than for me.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Chancellor aware that this document is being sent to civic authorities and mayors of towns, but that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jomo Kenyatta was responsible—[Interruption]—for the obscene and indecent oaths contained in the document?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot be a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Chancellor make it quite plain that the Government do not condone the circulation of this document?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Lloyd: All I am concerned with here as Chancellor of the Exchequer is the question of copyright.

Mr. H. Wilson: Would not the Chancellor see whether the cost of the operation is not being offset for tax purposes against profits by this organisation? There is far too much of this propaganda and publicity being done—

Mr. Hirst: What is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of?

Mr. Wilson: I am afraid of the Chancellor having to pay the cost of a lot of propaganda which, if people want to circulate it, they should pay for themselves. In view of that, will the Chancellor see whether he is, in fact, paying for this?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that this Question deals with copyright, and not with these other matters.

Investment Allowances

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not propose a reduction in investment allowances for general industry during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Wilson: As the Chancellor gave a clear assurance a few days ago about investment allowances for shipping—which, I think, the whole House welcomed—and as the present Prime Minister, as his first act as Chancellor of the Exchequer, scrapped investment allowances in 1956, does it not seem extraordinary that the Chancellor gives an assurance in respect of investment allowances for shipping? In view of the importance of investment allowances for general industry, will he not give a similar assurance that he or his successors will maintain those investment allowances at not less than their present value?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the shipping industry has always been treated as a unique industry, even in the circumstances of 1956. As to the general proposition, it will, of course, be my purpose


to try to promote investment, but I think that it would be unreasonable for me to be expected to tie my hands as the right hon. Gentleman asks.

Advertising Tax

Mr. Fisher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now the Government's policy to tax advertising.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My hon. Friend will have gathered from my Budget speech that the Answer to his Question is Yes, when the medium used is television.

Mr. Fisher: But is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his reference in the Budget speech to the television companies being bitten by the hand that fed them inferred to most of us that the programme companies were to bear the tax themselves, and that this was broadly acceptable in view of the high level of television profits, but that now that it is to be passed on and it becomes a tax on advertising—and on a particular form of advertising—it is less acceptable to many of my hon. Friends?

Mr. Lloyd: If my hon. Friend will observe what is happening, I think that he will find that in at least two cases the programme companies propose to bear part of the charge.

Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor regard television as another unique industry, and can he tell us why he selected this particular form of advertising for attack?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the industry is unique in the sense that it has a near-monopoly aspect. General taxation of advertising is a very much wider topic, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself had some experience of the difficulties there in his day.

Mr. Mac Arthur: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the bulk of the television contractors are passing on the whole of the tax to the advertisers? Is he aware of the very real concern there is that this tax, far from affecting the financial strength of the television contractors will, in fact, considerably weaken the financial position of the lesser advertising media, such as the provincial Press and the weaker sections of the periodical Press?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is trying to go rather further than it is appropriate to go in Question and Answer. After all, we will have an opportunity to debate the matter during our discussion of the Finance Bill.

Shakespeare (Anniversary Celebrations)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for Government assistance for the Shakespeare fourth centenary celebrations in 1964.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No proposals for Government assistance for this purpose have been put to me.

Mr. Gardner: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this fourth centenary deserves celebration by an imaginative, fitting and permanent monument? In view of the importance of these celebrations, and of the high reputation of the British theatre, would he not agree that this would be an appropriate time for him to reconsider his decision about the National Theatre? Would he not think it fitting to reconsider the possibility, at least, of making a substantial contribution towards the building of such a theatre?

Mr. Lloyd: I realise the importance and significance of this particular celebration. I have already answered one Question today about the National Theatre and have nothing more to say on that.

Mr. G. Jeger: Does the Chancellor realise that the best contribution he could make would be to release the £1 million already voted by Parliament?

Mr. Lloyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks that.

Paraffin

Mr. Gardner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much paraffin was sold for domestic consumption during the period 5th April, 1960, to 5th April, 1961; and what additional revenue is anticipated from the tax on paraffin during the present financial year.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Just over a million tons and about £3 million.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Oil and Oil Products

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a detailed statement on the regulations governing the imports of various kinds of oil to Great Britain for industrial purposes, indicating the country from which each comes and the amounts imported during each of the last five years.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Oil and oil products for all purposes are subject to import licensing regulations only when imported from the countries of the Eastern Area. With permission, I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of these countries and the amounts of oil of kinds which might be used for industrial purposes imported from each during the last five years.

UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS

1956
1957






Gallons
£
Gallons
£


Fuel Oil—


Soviet Union
…
…
…
…
—
—
15,293,482
593,560


Germany (Soviet Zone)
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—


Poland
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—


Lubricating Oil—


Soviet Union
…
…
…
…
3,817,896
252,144
6,924,532
559,845


Germany (Soviet Zone)
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—


Poland
…
…
…
…
—
—
206
46


Czechoslovakia
…
…
…
…
39
31
—
—

N.B.—There are no recorded imports from Eastern Area countries other than those shown.

Resale Price Maintenance

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade who serves on the Board of Trade Committee

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between oil from British Commonwealth sources, from British colonial sources and from completely foreign sources? If so, on what principle does he act?

Mr. Erroll: For the purpose of answering this Question, I was dealing with import licensing arrangements, and I said that only oil from the Eastern area has to be specially licensed.

Following is the information:
The countries comprising the Eastern Area are: Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Germany (Soviet Zone), Hungary, North Korea, North Vietnam, People's Republic of China, Poland, Roumania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Imports of fuel and lubricating oils (the only oils imported from these countries for industrial purposes) during each of the last five years were as follows:

now considering resale price maintenance; and whether it includes representatives from the Consumer Advisory Council or others competent to present the consumers' viewpoints.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The inquiry into resale price maintenance is being carried out by officials. They have been in touch with various consumer organisations.

Mrs. McLaughlin: But is not my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable worry in the country that the consumers' point of view will not be put forward from all angles? May we have an assurance that the consumers' angle and not only the manufacturers' angle is being thoroughly investigated?

Mr. Macpherson: It is open to consumers and consumers' organisations to put their views to my right hon. Friend. He has given instructions that all views put to him should be considered in the course of the inquiry.

Sale of Goods Act, 1893

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the growing practice of contracting out of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, by offering a form of guarantee is in the interests of purchasers generally; and what consideration he has given to this matter.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of the views which have been expressed on this subject, but as there are differences of opinion on the effect of these guarantees and on their practical consequences for the consumer, he proposes to await the findings and recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection before reaching a conclusion.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Nos. 10 and 18 of the Shoppers' Guide there has been an article on this matter and a facsimile of the form of guarantee of one car manufacturer? Is he further aware that in the case of the car manufacturer people taking over a car have been permitted to cut out part of the guarantee which prevents them under the Sale of Goods Act having rights and still sign the guarantee for effect? Does not this show that guarantees in respect of different merchandise are taking from the public their rights under the Sale of Goods Act? Is there not anything that my hon. Friend can do to protect the public?

Mr. Macpherson: I was aware of what my hon. Friend said in the first part of her supplementary question, but I still think that it would be better to wait for the findings of the Committee on Consumer Protection rather than take action in the meantime.

Hire Purchase (Motor Cars)

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation requiring the compulsory registration of hire purchase agreements relating to motor cars.

Mr. N. Macpherson: As my right hon. Friend informed my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on 30th March, he understands that the great bulk of hire-purchase transactions are already registered on a voluntary basis, but he is studying the situation.

Mr. Wade: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing number of cases where the purchaser buys a car, generally a second-hand car, in good faith, later finds that it is owned by a hire-purchase company and that the vendor, who by then may have disappeared, had no title to it? A shocking example of this was brought to my attention only yesterday. Is it the Government's intention to provide facilities for a Hire of Motor Vehicles Bill? If not, what do they intend to do to try to stop this growing racket?

Mr. Macpherson: As I have said, this is one of the matters that my right hon. Friend is studying. It is also being studied by the Committee on Consumer Protection. I am informed that 99·9 per cent. of hire-purchase transactions in vehicles are registered with Hire Purchase Information Limited.

Industrial Development North-East Region

Mr. P. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what success he has had in bringing new industry to the North-East since the introduction of the Local Employment Act.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Since the Act came into force we know of nine new firms which have decided to come into the area. The Act also, of course, benefits firms already in the area who


wish to expand. There are about 10,000 new jobs in prospect in the development districts in the North-East.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend says that jobs are "in prospect". How soon does he mean by that—during the current year, in the next 12 months, or what?

Mr. Macpherson: No; they are in prospect. These are the estimates of the amount of employment that firms setting up or expanding in the area expect to attain. It is not possible to say when they will attain it.

Mr. Lipton: Make what you like of that.

Machinery (Import)

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the discriminatory effect upon small firms of the £2,000 minimum value limit to the duty free import of machinery, where similar machinery is not procurable in the United Kingdom, he will now take steps to abolish this minimum value limit.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. The £2,000 limit was introduced on the advice of the Wilson Smith Committee as a condition of resuming the duty-free licensing of machinery in 1954. The Committee gave thorough consideration to the effect of the limit on smaller firms, but concluded that it was both essential and reasonable. This advice is still valid.

Mr. Wade: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, where new machinery can be obtained only from abroad, this imposition of a substantial duty on machinery under £2,000 in value is very unfair to smaller firms and indirectly adversely affects their ability to compete in the export market? Surely the Government should encourage firms to acquire the most up-to-date modern plant and machinery and not to discourage them in this way.

Mr. Erroll: The purpose of the duty, of course, is to provide protection for British manufacturers of machinery. A limit is necessary because, if there were no limit, we would be overwhelmed with applications for relief.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it does not matter how much

he is overwhelmed provided British industry is made efficient? That is the main consideration.

Mr. Erroll: Some hon. Members complain about swollen bureaucracies. We have to watch that as well.

Mr. Wade: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is machinery which can be obtained only from abroad? It is not procurable in this country.

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the point.

Solicitation of Money Deposits

Mr. du Cann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for regulating the solicitation of money deposits by companies from members of the public by advertisement and circulars.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so.

Mr. du Cann: With great respect to my hon. Friend, that is a most disappointing reply. Is he aware that a specific promise was made in the House just over 12 months ago that we should definitely have legislation in the current Session of Parliament? The need for it has been obvious for much longer than that. It is probably true to say that upwards of £1 million at the very least must have been lost by small investors because there has not been protective legislation. Can my hon. Friend give us a firm indication when we may now expect it?

Mr. Macpherson: With his wide knowledge of these things, my hon. Friend will realise that this is a very complicated matter. I assure him that we are getting on with this as quickly as we can.

Racing Cars

Mr. D. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider his decision not to include formula junior cars in his scheme for the remission of Purchase Tax on racing cars during the financial year 1961–62.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that since I first raised this matter with him it has taken just over a year for his


Department to reach a negative conclusion? Is he further aware that the various manufacturers of these vehicles have to go on producing in kit form so as to try to avoid Purchase Tax and that this is causing considerable inconvenience both to the manufacturers and to the buyers? Will he not in all conscience look at the matter again?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend gave very careful consideration to this matter, which is part of the reason for the lapse in time, but he sees no reason to double the financial provisions so as to include junior formula cars which have been racing successfully for some time without the benefit of this concession.

Cinemas, Scotland (Closure)

Mrs. White: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the closure of cinemas in Scotland.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend regrets that the statement given in Answer to the Question by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) on 11th April inadvertently included one cinema closed in Flintshire in 1959. The number closed for that year should thus be 63 and the total of closures for the six years 168. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the opportunity to correct this.

Mrs. White: I am grateful to the Minister for his apology, and on behalf of the people of Wales and, in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), who cannot be here today, also on behalf of the people of Scotland, I accept the apology.

Eggs (Import from Poland and Roumania)

Mr. Walker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the existing anti-dumping procedures in view of the failure of his Department to prevent the recent dumping of eggs from Poland and Roumania.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. I am writing to my hon. Friend explaining how our antidumping legislation operates.

Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his reply will give

a great deal of pleasure to egg producers throughout Roumania, who will be able to repeat next year the same dumping they have got away with this year? Is he also aware that egg producers—and, indeed, other food producers—throughout this country have completely lost confidence in the protection provided by the existing antidumping legislation?

Mr. Erroll: No. I do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are shared by the country as widely as he thinks. As regards the future. I ask him to await the receipt of my letter.

Mr. Peyton: Has my right hon. Friend heard of a saying which has been current for some time about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? Again and again we are told that this antidumping machinery is in existence and how efficient it is, but it is always applied too late. It is applied so late to surplus products from Poland, for example, that producers complain with great justification that it is wholly ineffective.

Mr. Erroll: The producers made an application, which was dealt with within eight days, which shows that their application was speedily considered. In considering these applications, however, we have to take account of several factors, not only whether dumping is taking place, but whether it is causing or is likely to cause material injury. In this case, we did not think that material injury was likely to be caused, because dumping was already diminishing.

Mr. S. Silverman: To satisfy his hon. Friends, could not the right hon. Gentleman approach his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to see whether he could make representations to Poland and Roumania to induce them to double the price of their eggs next time?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for trade negotiations with Poland and Roumania.

Carrots

Mr. Hilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of foreign carrots imported into this country during the last period of three months of which he has particulars; what was the price per ton; and how


this tonnage and price compares with a similar period in 1960 for imported carrots.

Mr. Erroll: Imports of fresh or chilled carrots from all sources during the first three months of 1961 were 2,178 tons valued at £64 per ton, compared with 2,406 tons valued at £67 per ton during a comparable period last year.

Mr. Hilton: Is the Minister aware that while this large amount of carrots was being imported farmers in my constituency in Norfolk were having to plough back carrots into the land because there was no sale for them? Is this not a stupid situation? Will the right hon. Gentleman watch the situation carefully, because this is an expensive crop to grow and if this sort of thing is allowed to expand too much it can cause grave financial loss to farmers and could lead to unemployment among farm workers?

Mr. Erroll: We have been watching the progress of imports. They are less this year than for the comparable period last year, although we appreciate that because there was an exceptionally heavy crop in 1960 there is a surplus of home-produced carrots.

Cotton Industry (Reorganisation Scheme)

Mr. Thornton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now state how many approved applications under the Cotton Finishing Reorganisation Scheme Orders have been made direct to the Cotton Board; how many have been made through realisation companies; what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the closing down and scrapping of production units in the finishing sections; and what percentages will be met by the Exchequer and by statutory levy on the industry, respectively.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Forty-seven approved applications were submitted through Realisation Companies and sixteen direct to the Cotton Board. The Exchequer contribution is expected to be rather less than £2 million. The Government will pay two-thirds of the cost of compensation for closing down units in accordance with the Scheme. The balance will be provided by levy on

the industry which will also take account of other costs of the operation, including the activities of the Realisation Companies. The total amount to be raised by levy will not be known until the Realisation Companies have completed the disposal of the properties acquired by them under the Schemes.

Mr. Thornton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, according to the statement made by a prominent person in the finishing section, the industry will have to raise two-thirds of the cost of scrapping and the Government contribution will be one-third? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this means that the average prices paid have been twice the figures set out in the formula established in the Order? Does not this lead one to believe that it may have been the effective and efficient competition that has been bought out rather than redundant plant?

Mr. Macpherson: The terms of the scheme are quite clear. The Government's contribution is two-thirds, related to the standard terms of compensation laid down in the Order. The realisation companies were allowed to pay such prices as they thought fit. We shall have to wait to see how the proportion works out. It is not possible to forecast at present.

Mr. Thornton: Can we be assured that this House will be informed of the amount that is being raised from the industry by the statutory levy authorised by this House? If it is twice the amount of the formula laid down in the Order, the House certainly should be advised of the fact.

Mr. Macpherson: I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Member has said. The provision for the levy to be made has already been provided for in the Order and it can now be made by the industry itself. If the hon. Member wishes to know the figure, I shall willingly try to ascertain whether it would be proper for me to reveal it to the House or whether it would be better for the industry itself to make it known.

South Caernarvonshire

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in providing new industries in South Caernarvonshire.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Financial assistance under the Local Employment Act has been offered to a small project in this area, and three other applications are under consideration. We shall continue to encourage industrialists to go to South Caernarvonshire.

Mr. Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the area continues to have one of the highest unemployment percentages in the whole country and that so far his Department has not been able to assist in the least? Is he not further aware that the view of those most concerned with the problem locally, including leaders of both sides of industry and the local authorities, is that this is especially the kind of area which could be most effectively helped by the introduction of one or more advance factories?

Mr. Macpherson: I am aware of the hon. Member's view on the last point. I am also aware that unemployment in the area has fallen considerably lately and is now standing at 4·4 per cent., which represents a very big reduction from what it was.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that any improvement in the situation to which he may refer is due entirely to seasonal factors and that the fundamental and longstanding problem still remains to be solved?

Mr. Macpherson: I am aware that there is a fundamental and long-standing problem. We are doing our best to meet it.

Cinemas (Film Quotas)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state for British first and supporting programme films, respectively, the average quota achievement of the cinemas in the third, national, circuit; and how many cinemas in this circuit defaulted.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Cinemas which normally take the National Release are not required to inform the Board of Trade of this fact. Consequently, figures of the average quota achievement and the number of quota defaults of these cinemas are not available. It is known, however, that so far as cinemas controlled by the Rank Organisation are

concerned, none of them, including those in the national circuit, failed to achieve the prescribed quotas in the year ended 30th September last.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman investigating the situation, especially with a view to trying to get the figures? Is he aware of the complaints of producers that the third circuit is not independent of A.B.C. and Rank, as it should be, and that, therefore, it is not making a contribution towards stimulating British film production? If the hon. Gentleman does not have the figures, we are unable to judge whether that is so. Will he, therefore, consult the exhibitors to see whether these figures can be produced in order to compare them with the A.B.C. and Rank circuits?

Mr. Macpherson: The position regarding the independent cinemas that belong to the so-called third circuit is that this is simply a normal business arrangement as to whether they belong to it. They are not obliged to report to us. I will look into what the hon. Member has said to see whether it is possible to get the figures, but there is no statutory obligation on the members of the third circuit to report the fact that they are members.

Mr. Swingler: I am asking the hon. Gentleman whether he will not make it an obligation. The whole purpose of the circuit is to try to have three opportunities for producers to get their films shown on a basis that will return their costs of production. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can get the figures for circuit showings for the third circuit, we are unable to judge whether it is having this effect compared with A.B.C. and Rank.

Mr. Macpherson: I have taken note of what the hon. Member has said and will consider it.

Kilwinning

Mr. Manuel: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken by his Department to attract industrial undertakings to occupy the industrial estate situated at Kilwinning, in the constituency of Central Ayrshire.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Kilwinning is a development district in which the facilities of the Local Employment Act are


available. The Board of Trade continues in its efforts to encourage industrial development there.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a rather shocking reply? Is he aware that there is still only one small factory on that estate? Is he further aware that on 13th March, 1952, the then President of the Board of Trade informed me in reply to a Question that the rest of the estate was being held in reserve for future development? Can the hon. Gentleman now give an assurance to the Ayr County Council and to Kilwinning Town Council that real action will be taken by his Department to attract industrial undertakings to the site?

Mr. Macpherson: The site is still available and efforts are being made to attract industry to it. It should also be remembered, however, that Kilwinning is only three miles from Irvine and that it is to that place that industry is at present being attracted and where over 1,600 jobs are in prospect.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENCE

Nuclear Research Station, Langley

Mr. Brockway: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will authorise the Atomic Energy Authority to negotiate to take over the Hawker Siddeley Nuclear Research Station at Langley, Buckinghamshire, in view of the announcement that it is to be closed down.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): No, Sir, my noble Friend is advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that they do not need this establishment.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the best-staffed and best-equipped research stations for this purpose in the country? Is he also aware that what is happening at Langley is happening at research stations very widely over industry, and is it not desirable that our national authority should take some responsibility in this constructive field?

Mr. Freeth: I do not think that we can expect the Atomic Energy Authority to take over work which it does not regard

as being economically justifiable, and in taking work which it is already doing in a number of fields.

Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this very important British firm has played a leading part in the production of small reactors, like Jason? Who is now to do research in this field? Are we now to drift and do nothing?

Mr. Freeth: The Atomic Energy Authority is studying the organic moderated reactor and is keeping in touch with developments abroad. I also understand that another British firm is studying the organic moderated reactor.

Mr. Brockway: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Research and Development, Scotland

Mr. Willis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what proportion of Government-financed industrial research and development is at present being carried out in Scotland.

Mr. Freeth: In 1958–59, the latest period for which such figures are available, the total expenditure by Government on research and development carried out by private industry in the United Kingdom was £154 million of which about 90 per cent. was for defence. It is not possible to separate the proportion carried out in Scotland, as a number of firms operate on both sides of the border; but I estimate that about 5 per cent. of this expenditure relates to Scotland. As regards the D.S.I.R., for which my noble Friend is responsible, expenditure in Scotland in 1959–60 was £960,000, or 12 per cent. of the Department's total expenditure on research establishments and in grant aid to co-operative industrial research associations.

Mr. Willis: Is not this Answer a revelation of the shocking state of private industry in Scotland in relation to science? What are the Government doing to try to encourage private industry to make much greater use of science and also to place more development orders in Scotland?

Mr. Freeth: With regard to making science more popular amongst Scottish industrialists, part of the trouble is undoubtedly due to the fact that the proportion of traditional industry in Scotland is very high. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for which my noble Friend is responsible, is working very hard on this problem. It is one in which all hon. Members could help when talking to industrialists in their own constituencies.

Mr. Peart: Is not this state of affairs in Scotland really shocking, and is it not time that more money was spent on research for peaceful uses as applied to industry?

Mr. Freeth: I agree that private industry could spend to greater advantage a great deal more money upon research and development, but if one refers to Government expenditure it is, I think, noteworthy that the population of Scotland is 10 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom whereas the D.I.S.R. expenditure in Scotland in the services to which I have referred is no less than 12 per cent. of its total expenditure.

Space Research

Mr. Peart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will make a statement on present plans for Great Britain's contribution to a space research programme.

Mr. Freeth: I apologise for the length of this reply.
Great Britain's present programme for space research is comprised of five main elements. There is the programme of scientific experiments using sounding rockets. Further experiments will be made in satellites to be launched by the United States, with whom we are also collaborating in the testing of communications using satellites.
Thirdly, we are taking an active part in the Preparatory Commission recently set up to plan a European organisation for co-operation in scientific research in space. We and the French Government have also proposed to other European Governments a co-operative programme for the development of satellite launchers, beginning with one based on

Blue Streak to be fired from the joint United Kingdom-Australia range at Woomera. Finally we are doing a great deal of satellite tracking and data analysis work, including the operation of one of the three World Data Centres, which act as international clearing houses for space research information.
All these activities reflect the great importance which Her Majesty's Government attaches to international co-operation in space research and our future plans will, therefore, be considerably affected by the results of the discussions which are taking place with other countries with regard to the third and fourth elements of our programme which I have enumerated.

Mr. Peart: While there is an improvement in the sense that the Government are now giving a little more detail of what they are trying to do, could not the Government really hasten these discussions? Again, are we in consultation with the Commonwealth Governments in relation to a space programme, specifically Australia, and could he give us more information in that direction?

Mr. Freeth: We are in very close contact with both the Australian and Canadian Governments. With regard to the European discussions on the Blue Streak project, those discussions are going forward and we hope that they will reach an early and acceptable conclusion.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that his lengthy verbiage in reply to the Question constitutes a complete smoke-screen and that the discouragement emanating from his Department to British participation in a space research programme is leading already to an exodus of the finest brains of this country to the United States and Canada? Will he emphasise to his leader that the failure to participate, with or without international support, in a British Commonwealth space research programme can lead only to disaster?

Mr. Freeth: With regard to the first two points made by my hon. Friend, I would very strongly disagree with what he said. With regard to his last remark, there is a Question down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Thursday, which, I think, will cover the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

St. George's Day (Flags)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Works what are the buildings under his control in Liverpool; which of them are supplied with one and two flagpoles, respectively; and which of them flew the Union Jack or St. George's flag, or both, on St. George's Day, 23rd April 1961.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): There are in Liverpool, 59 buildings for which I am responsible. Four have a single flagpole and flew the Union Jack on St. George's Day and one has two flagpoles and flew the St. George's flag in addition.

Mr. Pannell: Does my noble Friend recollect that in reply to my earlier Questions he assured me that all buildings under his control would be supplied with two flagpoles so that they could fly both the Union Jack and the St. George's flag? Is he aware that there was a disgraceful display in Liverpool on 23rd April, and will he see that this matter is remedied in future?

Lord John Hope: I do not recollect that I gave that undertaking, because I have so many buildings to cater for, but I will certainly check my words and get in touch with my hon. Friend. I might remind my hon. Friend of the details of the Union Jack where St. George's cross may be seen nestling in the shadow of St. Andrew's.

Richmond Park (Army Camp)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Works when it is proposed to remove the Army camp buildings from Richmond Park.

Lord John Hope: Eight huts were removed in 1959 and a further 37 will be removed this year. The camp is due to be vacated completely by the spring of 1963, when the remaining buildings will he removed.

Mr. Jeger: Will the noble Lord appreciate that that reply will give a great deal of satisfaction to many Londoners apart from those who live in the vicinity of Richmond Park and who value its splendid amenities?

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (STATEMENT)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister if the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 21st April, in London, about Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards deportation to and immigration from Commonwealth countries, represents Her Majesty's Government's policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: But is my right hon. Friend aware that his colleague said that the Government had no plans to halt immigration from any Commonwealth country at present? In my right hon. Friend's opinion, is there any limit to the number of coloured immigrants that this country can safely absorb? If there is, will he say what that limit is likely to be? [HON. MEMBERS: "What colour?"] This is my Question. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of this country are desperately concerned about the colour problem? May I plead with him to give his personal attention to this problem which is causing more anxiety to ordinary people in this country than any other problem at present?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks whether a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary represents the Government's view. The reason for this statement was that a statement had been attributed to Sir Grantley Adams, who was alleged to have said that West Indian immigration to Britain would be likely to stop before the end of the year and that some people would be sent back to the West Indies. My right hon. Friend consulted me and I thought it right that this statement should be made by the Colonial Secretary, which merely repeats, as has been repeatedly said in Parliament, that Her Majesty's Government have the situation under review but at present they have no plans to introduce legislation. I have since heard that Sir Grantley Adams denies making the statement, which was wrongly attributed to him, and I thought that it was important to correct it because it might have just the wrong effect, contrary to what my hon. Friend's anxieties are.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that over the last two or three years various Ministers have said that the Government have this matter under consideration, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will please say when they will make up their mind about it? The people of this country are more concerned about this—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes, they are.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) has departed from the interrogative form and is repeating verbatim what he said before.

The Prime Minister: I quite understand that all hon. Members from every point of view realise the importance and difficulty of this problem. There was a debate a month ago and I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the Government statement made then.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that we welcome the Colonial Secretary's reassuring statement on this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, instead of talking about stopping immigration, it would be more helpful if the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne) gave attention to the housing problem created by this and did not try to stop a valuable contribution to the labour force in this country?

The Prime Minister: The Government's position is exactly as I have stated. We are considering this matter and have not reached a conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIAN MIGRATION (UNITED STATES)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Kennedy about the effect under the McCarran-Walter Act upon West Indian migration to the United States of the forthcoming independent status of the West Indies Federation.

The Prime Minister: As I have already told the House in answer to several Questions, I do not think it right in any statements to the House after discussions like those I recently had with President Kennedy to go beyond the points contained in or arising out of the joint communiqué.
Nevertheless, I think it would be no breach of confidence to say that the British Government have already made representations to the American Administration in connection with the problem of West Indian migration to the United States, having regard to new legislation before Congress.
The United States have made it clear—for example, in the statement made by the former United States Ambassador in London during recent talks in Tobago about the new West Indian bases agreement—that they are deeply concerned to promote the welfare of the West Indian people.

Mr. Chapman: Does the Prime Minister agree with my interpretation of the existing legislation, that is, that it is possible that a quota will be offered to the West Indies Federation when it becomes independent? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is new legislation before Congress which will make that even more possible? Thirdly, if neither of those assumptions is true, will the right hon. Gentleman increase the pressure as much as possible on the American Administration to relax restriction on West Indian immigration so that America can again become a place to which many West Indians can go as they have gone in the past?

The Prime Minister: There are two quite separate problems which the hon. Member has in mind. One is the actual interpretation of the relevant United States legislation if and when the time comes that the West Indian Federation comes into being. Is it to be considered as a unit taking the place of the previous arrangements? There is another question to which, through the ordinary channels, we have called attention and have made our views known to the American Government, hoping that they may see their way to raise the total, quite apart from the question of interpretation.

Oral Answers to Questions — JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (APPOINTMENT)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport in


relation to the problems of the mercantile marine and the shipbuilding industry.

The Prime Minister: The new Parliamentary Secretary will assist my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in all matters concerning shipping and shipbuilding, including ship repairing and marine engineering. He will also assist my right hon. Friend in matters concerning ports.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who for some time have asked for the appointment of a Minister of Shipping are at any rate satisfied with the appointment of a Joint Parliamentary Secretary in the meantime? Will the Government do everything possible to encourage the new Minister to formulate a constructive policy in order to help the mercantile marine and the shipbuilding industry?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the new Parliamentary Secretary will be of the greatest value to the Minister in trying to solve some of these very difficult questions.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will also have access to and will be able to give his advice to the Minister for Housing and Local Government on the rating problems of the shipyards? Will he also have access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would have much preferred that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) had been made Minister of State instead of Joint Parliamentary Secretary?

The Prime Minister: On the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have no doubt that many hon. Members might feel that. It is always a good thing to upgrade as far as possible, but there is a limit. If everybody became Minister of State we should have to think of some more names. That is all that would happen. As to the second part of the supplementary question, all Ministers have access to each other both socially and officially.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that if the energies of the new Minister are to be concentrated particularly on the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries, it is to be welcomed, be cause both are in a bad way owing to lack of orders and great unemployment is ensuing? Will the right hon. Gentleman direct or cause the new Minister to institute a special inquiry into the present disasters in the shipbuilding industry which are causing unemployment there?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, my hon. and gallant Friend will assist the Minister with this special part of the work relating to shipping and shipbuilding.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. MEETING (NUCLEAR PARTNERSHIP)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will attend the forthcoming meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council, in order to discuss proposals for a nuclear partnership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The forthcoming Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Council will not be held at the level of Heads of Governments.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to dispel the fog which has been growing steadily thicker round his speech in Massachusetts concerning nuclear partnership? Does he recall saying at a meeting in England a week ago, in an ambiguous phrase, that this was simply a thought which he threw out and that it was not yet relevant?
In view of the fact that the French Government have already exploded their third atomic bomb, will not the Prime Minister at least agree that Britain will give up her independent control of atomic weapons if this seems useful in order to stop the spread of atomic weapons in N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: We are considering all these problems. I posed some aspects of them in my speech. We are still searching for the answers. If we can find a method of moving from collective defence to some kind of partnership


management with nuclear weapons, it would be very valuable among nuclear countries. I do not think, quite frankly, that the N.A.T.O. Council, which is about to meet in Oslo, is the appropriate place for the best discussion of this problem. This particularly affects the British, American and French Governments.

Mr. Gaitskell: While we welcome the Prime Minister's realisation of the great danger of the spread of these weapons, and since, according to him, the N.A.T.O. Council is not the appropriate place to discuss the problem, could he give us some idea of what other way he proposes to discuss it?

The Prime Minister: These matters are discussed between Governments in the ordinary way.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate a meeting between the heads of Government of Britain, the United States and France in order to discuss this matter?

The Prime Minister: Not necessarily a meeting, but discussions can proceed.

CLUB, BOLTON (FIRE)

Mr. Holt (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning the fire in Crown Street, Bolton, last night, which resulted in serious loss of life.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The Bolton Fire Brigade was summoned at seven minutes past eleven last night to a fire involving a club on the top floor of premises in Crown Street, used primarily for warehousing and commercial purposes.
I regret to inform the House that the fire is reported to have caused the deaths of 19 people, and I should like to take this opportunity of offering my deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives.
My right hon. Friend has arranged for two of Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services to visit the scene of the fire and submit to him a detailed report.

Mr. Holt: I know that all Members of the House will share the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern and sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives in this tragic event.
Will the terms of reference of the inquiry which the Home Secretary has instituted be wide enough to embrace all matters which may have bearing on the cause of this disaster? Will the Home Secretary, at the same time, look at the powers of local authorities and consider whether they are sufficient to enforce recommendations on fire precautions that chief fire officers may make from time to time in respect of clubs?

Mr. Renton: The two inspectors who are carrying out this investigation will be reporting to my right hon. Friend before the end of this week. They will make an immediate report. The inquiry is not public. Nevertheless, it is expected to be a comprehensive investigation into the matter.
We will, of course, consider the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman in his supplementary question when we have the report.

Mr. Holt: Does that mean that, after the Home Secretary has received the report, it is still possible, if circumstances require it, for a larger and public inquiry to be held?

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend will consider that when he has received the inspectors' report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short business statement.
The House was informed last night that the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill would be put down as second Order today. We thought that this was the best course to take until we could measure the likely time which the proceedings on the first business today, which is the Army and Air Force Bill, would take.
A number of Amendments have been tabled to the Army and Air Force Bill and the Government have decided not to take the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill tonight, but to put it down as first Order tomorrow in view of its urgency. Afterwards, we shall proceed with the business previously announced.

Mr. Gaitskell: We are glad that the Government have taken this step. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that in our opinion the further stages of the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill will require a full day's debate?

Mr. Butler: I do not necessarily accept that view. We must see what progress we can make.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) ACT, 1926 (AMENDMENT)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act, 1926, to proceedings before Ecclesiastical Courts.
The Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act. 1926, is, as the Short Title indicates,
An Act to regulate the publication of reports of judicial proceedings in such manner as to prevent injury to public morals.
The Act consists of two parts. The first part makes it unlawful to print or publish
in relation to any judicial proceedings any indecent matter or indecent medical, surgical or physiological details being matter or details the publication of which would be calculated to injure public morals;".
It will be noticed that this absolute prohibition applies to all judicial proceedings, whether civil or criminal, or of any other kind, and covers proceedings before an ecclesiastical court.
The second part of the Act makes it unlawful to print or publish
in relation to any judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for judicial separation, or for restitution of conjugal rights, any particulars other than the following…

(i) The names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses;
(ii) a concise statement of the charges, defences and counter charges in support of which evidence has been given;
(iii) submissions on any point of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and the decision of the court thereon;
(iv) the summing-up of the judge and the finding of the jury (if any) and the judgment of the court and observations made by the judge in giving judgment."

The Act was introduced and passed to deal with what had become quite a considerable public scandal—the frequent, copious and wholesale reports of the sordid details of divorce cases. The Act was introduced as a Private Member's Bill, but was adopted by the Government of the day and carried to Second Reading by a majority of 222 to 3.
It appears that by an apparent oversight the Act did not cover proceedings


involving a charge of immorality before ecclesiastical courts. Fortunately, proceedings in ecclesiastical courts involving charges of immorality are comparatively rare. They do occasionally occur, however, and hon. Members will remember the recent proceedings in Southwark Consistory Court, in which Dr. Bryn Thomas, Vicar of the Church of the Ascension, Balham Hill, was involved. He was subsequently suspended and is about to be unfrocked by the Bishop of Southwark.
Those proceedings involved a great deal of publicity—a great many people think that there was far too much publicity—with no restriction on the publication in the Press of all the sordid details of the case. I make no attack on the Press, and have no reason to suppose that the proprietors or members of the Press will be opposed to the Bill.
The object is to repair what I believe was an omission in the Act of 1926, extending its provisions to proceedings before ecclesiastical courts involving charges of immorality. I exclude, of course, all other proceedings before ecclesiastical courts, because, obviously, the same considerations do not apply in any other proceedings before a consistory court in regard to doctrine, for example.
It seems to me that the reasons which justified the passage of the 1926 Act are sufficient to justify the extension of that Act in proceedings before an ecclesiastical court. I should have thought that the grounds for making this extension applied a fortiori. After all, proceedings before an ecclesiastical court are in the nature of domestic proceedings. No crime is involved. If any similar charge were made against a priest of any other denomination or any other minister of religion, whether a Roman Catholic or a Nonconformist, the inquiry would be completely private. No other Church in this country, or, as far as I know, in any other country, would permit proceedings of this kind to be reported in all their sordid details.
Nor is there any necessity for it on grounds of which I am aware. Justice does not require it. No one is suggesting

that these proceedings should be held otherwise than in public, as, of course, are all divorce proceedings in the divorce courts. All proceedings should be open to the public.
The small number of people who opposed the 1926 Act based their opposition on two grounds. Some thought that it would interfere with justice. I think we can claim that thirty-four years' experience of the 1926 Act does not entitle anybody to say that the administration of justice has been in any way impaired by the restriction on the publication of details which that Act imposed.
It was also suggested that full publicity might act as a deterrent. I hardly think that that argument can be applied here. No one could suggest that the deterrent effect of publicity would weigh with anyone in the situation of Dr. Thomas, for example, knowing that a finding of guilt and consequent deprivation must be the end of any ecclesiastical career.
On the other hand, the argument of a deterrent may well act in the opposite direction. It may well be that, faced with the alternative of either permitting matters of this kind to continue, or commencing proceedings knowing the full publicity and the scandal which would result, a bishop would hesitate to take action.
On those grounds, I hope that leave will be given to bring in this Bill, which is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by a number of distinguished institutions outside.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Eric Fletcher, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Sir Hamilton Kerr, Mr. James MacColl, Mr. Goronwy Roberts, Mr. Peter Kirk, and Mr. John Cronin.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (REGULATION OF REPORTS) ACT, 1926 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to extend the provisions of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act, 1926, to proceedings before Ecclesiastical Courts, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 12th May, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUANCE OF ARMY ACT, 1955, AND AIR FORCE ACT, 1955.)

3.44 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out:
month of August in the".

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the similar Amendment in page 1, line 20.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, Sir William. The purpose of the Amendments is directed to securing that the Bill will expire on 31st December annually instead of, as the Bill proposes, on 31st August. During the proceedings on the 1955 Bill considerable thought was given to the procedures to be adopted by the House in relation to the continuance of the Army Act.
The Bill under consideration had become very much out of date and, while it was thought advisable to suggest that a new procedure should be introduced, the Committee was, at the same time, mindful that the House should have control of what was, after all, an important constitutional matter. Indeed, one can say that over the centuries no more important matter came before the House than the question of maintaining a Regular Army in time of peace.
The matter does not go as far constitutionally as that, but the Amendment approaches this problem in a practical way. Since the passing of the 1955 Act, it has been the practice of the House to have an opportunity immediately after the Queen's Speech to discuss the affirmative Order for four years and then in the fifth year—which is the point we have reached—the matter goes before a Select Committee.
That seems a highly desirable procedure because, coming as it does at that point in the year, the Government's defence policy for the ensuing year will

clearly not have reached finality, but will have taken on a form which will make the Government responsive to opinions from both sides of the House which might be ventilated in such a debate. If the proposal that the terminating date should be 31st August were accepted, the debate would come in June. In other words, it would come at a time when the business of the House was becoming congested. For that reason, the debate may take on a different character from that which it would take on when the Government had more time on their hands at the beginning of the Session.
I am concerned about the effect of such a change on the Army. On page 83 of the Select Committee's Report there is a letter from the Clerk of the House asking the Select Committee to consider this point. It seems to me that the argument he advances is that the debates which have taken place on the continuation Order have not always been relevant. If they are not relevant in November, there is no great argument that they would be more relevant in June.
This is entirely a matter for the Chair. Having attended all the debates, except one, when I was ill, it seems to me that the reason why debates have tended to get out of order is that hon. Members on both sides have found it necessary or convenient to discuss such matters as pay, which is clearly out of order. It is also clear that it has not been appreciated that when the House discusses conditions of enlistment it does not necessarily follow that conditions of service can be discussed. They are two different things.
The argument is also advanced that if we had a debate in June, this would be the winding-up, as it were, of the debates on defence during the year, and the continuation Order would be at the end of the series instead of as at present a kind of curtain-raiser. In fact, there is a long lapse of time between our debates on Service matters and the issuing of the next Defence White Paper. What hon. Gentlemen fail to appreciate is that a debate in November is no further away from the defence debate than is a debate in June. In the one case, it is in advance of it, and in the other it follows after it.
It seems to me that this proposal, the purpose of which, I think, I understand,


and with which I sympathise, misses what is, after all, a great difficulty for the House, and not only for the House, but for the Services and the country as a whole. We have changed our defence debate procedure during the sixteen years I have been in the House, and the importance of the debates on the three Service Departments has tended to lessen, while the highlight has been the two-day debate on the Defence White Paper. When the debates on the Service Estimates have ended, we move on to a rather "higgledy-piggledy" day, on which it is a matter of luck which Service Estimates would be taken first and which would be taken last. As I understand the procedure, the Government put on the Order Paper the Votes they want, and the Opposition decide which ones they would like to be taken first.
I make this suggestion, which I have made before with the support of a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The Government should very earnestly consider, in the interests of the Services, whether it would not be advisable to take the Committee stage of the Estimates in Committee upstairs—and there is a precedent for this—in a Committee of secrecy. We do not need any special Resolution, and we do not need the functioning of the Official Secrets Act. If any hon. Member misused information which he had there gained, he would be answerable to the discipline of the House, which, I am sure, would take a serious view of such a matter.
It would have this advantage, that there could be volunteers from both sides. I know that the Government would have to have their majority. I accept that. It would be nonsense if the Government did not get a majority, but it would be in the interests of the Services and of Service Ministers, if, when we once get over that, and the Government have got their Estimates through the House, they were then taken upstairs, behind closed doors, where those interested in the Navy, Army and Air Force could then debate them in detail. If that were done, that would be the culminating point of the defence Estimates, I make that suggestion in all seriousness. I have made it before, and I repeat it today, and I hope that I shall get the support of those who agree that this is a very important matter indeed.
On the Amendment which I am now putting to the Government, and which I earnestly ask them to accept, it would have the considerable political advantage which I have argued, and the debate would come at a time convenient to the Government and not when the parliamentary time-table is congested. It would be a curtain-raiser to the defence debate, which would then come at the point when interest is tending to lapse. Those of us interested in these affairs have tried in the past by various devices to initiate defence debates on the Appropriations Bill at the end of July. I think that it would be a thoroughly retrograde step if the House went back on the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1953. We gave the most earnest consideration to this matter. We were not sure that the five-year period was the right one, and I made the suggestion that it should be five years in a paper which I put before the Committee.
I think that, by and large, five years is about right, but this is a matter of opinion, just as indeed, in the last analysis, the question which I am arguing this afternoon is no less a matter of opinion. The present system during the first series—the first four years of the continuation Orders, plus the Select Committee—has worked well. It has given the House an opportunity to bring itself face to face with the realities arising from the change-over from National Service to a Regular Army, and I think that the Government and the House would be well advised to continue a procedure which, in this first phase, has worked excellently.

Mr. R. T. Paget: In this matter, I have been a lone voice in opposing the recommendation of the majority of the Select Committee that the date upon which this debate should be taken—that is, the debate on the continuation Order—should be advanced from November to July.
I have one apology to make in this matter. I think that the only sitting of the Committee which I missed was when I was actually on a N.A.T.O. exercise in the Bay of Biscay. That sitting was the one when this point was, in the main, discussed, although the decision was not formally taken. When I got back, the decision had been informally taken, so


that I could only record my vote against it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has made a suggestion with which I have always had a great deal of sympathy: that is, the idea that the Estimates Committee should go upstairs, that these discussions should not be on the Floor of the House, and, even more so, that it should be a Committee of secrecy. I believe that the effect of the Estimates debates being taken here, particularly after the two-day defence debate, by their very sparse attendance and rather prolonged length, give a false impression to the country of the interest which is, in fact, taken in the Services, and also, because of the publicity involved, inhibit a good deal of the questioning which otherwise one might wish to make.
Whether we have the debates on the Estimates here or we have them upstairs, it still seems to me that the convenient time for the debates upon the continuation Order should be the autumn—when we have had the experience of what is the main recruiting season—rather than July, when we have not had enough time to judge what has been said in the Estimates debates, and in anticipation therefor, and when our suggestions are too close to the suggestions which have been made in the earlier debates for them to be very relevant when the Government come to their final decision.
When the debates have taken place in November—I have been going through the debates, and I shall refer to them in a moment—it seems to me that they have been valuable debates. In the way in which the business of this House tends to evolve so as to provide something useful, these continuation Order debates have taken the form of recruiting debates and have provided the occasion upon which we could discuss that subject. As my hon. Friend has said, there is a distinction here. The terms and conditions of service are in the Act, and, therefore, are the subject of the debate.

Mr. Wigg: Surely, that is not quite right. The terms of enlistment are contained partly in the Act and partly in the Manual of Military Law—but not the conditions of service.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: As always, my hon. Friend has expressed the situation more accurately than I have. The words used in the Act are "terms and conditions of service" and my hon. Friend is right in saying that it is wrong to refer to them as the terms and conditions of enlistment, since those are more generally to be found in the Regulations and the Manual.
None the less, since the conditions of service have to be defined, especially in relation to pay—although that is a matter for the Warrant—and affect the success of the whole enlistment process, the Chair, as I shall demonstrate shortly, has taken a very wide view of what is admissible; indeed, it has taken a good deal wider view than many of us anticipated in the first place.
It is precisely because it has taken that wide view that this has become such a convenient occasion to debate the matter, coming as it does just at the end of the main recruiting season—the season where the relevant generation has come from school. The best month for recruiting is normally September, and one then has an opportunity to look at the season and see how it has worked.
The first occasion upon which this matter came up was in 1957–58. Mr. Speaker's Ruling will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 579, beginning at col. 227, where Mr. Speaker said:
I think I might intervene to say that the right hon. Gentleman has moved a substantive Motion
on the question of the right of reply. Later, we had the substantive Ruling, when Mr. Speaker said:
It is important that we should try to get the position straight. This is the first time that this procedure has been resorted to for the Army Act and I am anxious not to lay down any Rule which is wrong. The way I look at it is that, broadly speaking, the subjects which are covered by the Act are those which, in general, are discharged by the Departments in the War Office of the Adjutant-General and the Quartermaster-General—what the soldiers used to call 'A' and 'Q' matters. Therefore, in my judgement, matters applying to the General Staff, operational matters, the strategy of the Army and even foreign affairs in connection with the Army, are completely out of order on this debate. There are, of course, borderline questions and I should hesitate in advance to lay down a rule about them.


In so far as the Act makes provision for recruitment and for the terms of engagement of the Regular Army, and in so far as it can be shown that these conditions militate against recruiting or harm recruiting or are successful in attracting recruits, I think that that would be in order.
I wish the House, however, to distinguish between the debate on this Motion and the debate which it will have later in the Session on the Army Estimates, which is not affected by our new procedure. There are matters which the experience and judgment of an hon. Member will tell him are most suitably discussed upon Supply than upon a Motion to continue an Act, which is all that we are dealing with today. While it might be essential to permit many matters of a Supply character for the purpose of illustrating an otherwise relevant argument on the Act, I think that it would be better to defer matters of figures, exact computations of figures and the like, to the Supply debate, when we really can get down to it without fear of being out of order.
There was considerably more discussion after that. The gentleman who will very shortly once again be the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East said:
Since we are, at this stage of the debate, Mr. Speaker, drawing the limits of what is in order, may I raise one other point on the general question covered by the Order? I refer to the old question whether we should have a standing Army or not. For the reasons which have been given, in so far as the present continuation Order is the new form of the old Army Annual Act, would it not be in order for those Members who wish to deal with the old question whether we should have a standing Army to raise it on the Order?
Mr. Speaker then pointed out that this was a good deal narrower, and that while there could be a very wide debate on the Army Act, the debate on the Order should be restricted. Mr. Speaker said:
I do not think that the terms of the Motion are identical with passing or refusing to pass the old Army Act. The terms of the Motion confine our discussion to the Act which it is proposed to continue. The 1955 Act substituted the present procedure, which we are trying to work, for the old Army Act procedure.
The Act is described as
'An Act to make provision with respect to the Army'.
A general argument that we should make no provision with regard to the Army might conceivably be in order, but it would not be possible to import into such an argument questions of conscription, and so on. It would merely be the question that we should have no Army at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley then intervened. He had been

on the Committee and had been one of the authors of the new procedure. He said:
It is important to settle the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). Has he not overlooked that the old Army Annual Act, which we passed up to 1952, authorised the maintenance of a standing Army and gave a specific number which the Government must not exceed? We have now altered our procedure. By the Government obtaining Vote A, the numbers are then established and Parliament is then authorised to continue a standing Army. By the exercise of the Prerogative, which first has to be approved by the House, the Army is continued in being. That is what we are engaged upon today when we are asked to approve a draft Order, which subsequently has to be presented to Her Majesty. What we are doing today is continuing in a different form the procedure which has gone on since 1689.
Mr. Speaker then said:
I think that the hon. Member is right. That was what I was trying to say when I said that certain matters were more suitable for discussion on Supply than for discussion on the Order continuing the Act. Vote A is the point in Supply when we decide the number of men in the Army. An argument such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) put to me—namely, against the whole of the Act continuing at all—would be a very arid and academic one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1957; Vol. 579, c.227–32.]
So we arrive at the position there, and this was confirmed again after further argument by Mr. Speaker the following year when, again, my hon. Friend raised a question of order.—[Laughter.] It is very important on these proceedings—although hon. Members are laughing—that one should discover what we are deciding because, in my submission, if the Select Committee had had the opportunity to find out what was the question and go to these Reports to see what had been happening, its decision would have been different, and the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley would have been accepted, as I hope it will be accepted today by the Government.
Since I am asking the Government to differ both from the Select Committee and from the Clerk of the House on this issue, I think it important that we should go rather thoroughly into just what it is from which we are asking them to depart. I do not make any apology for going into this rather fully. On 6th November, 1958, my hon. Friend the Member for


Dudley raised a point of order. He said:
A year ago, when we first debated this Order, Mr. Speaker, you were kind enough to give a Ruling in which you said that matters which normally fell within the purview of the Adjutant-General or Quartermaster-General could properly be raised in debate.
When one reads the Report of that debate in HANSARD after the lapse of a year one becomes conscious of the fact that your Ruling took on a slight variation in the course of the debate, and it is not unfair to say that before the debate finished we had at least three interpretations of what you had said.
Would it not be convenient to the House, so that we can discuss this matter in an orderly way, for you to be good enough to clarify the Ruling that you gave on that occasion? I respectfully submit that it should take this form: that all matters which normally fall within the purview of the Adjutant-General are in order, and only some of the matters falling within the purview of the Quartermaster-General are in order.
I again respectfully submit that what we are here discussing is the continuation of the Army Act, and, broadly speaking, the only matter-that we can raise are those covered by the Army Act, which would confine us very closely to matters falling under the charge of the Quartermaster-General—perhaps only to the extent of billeting charges. I should be glad to have your ruling on this matter. Mr. Speaker.
Then Mr. Speaker said:
My main Ruling last year was to the effect that only matters contained in the Act which it is proposed to continue can be discussed in this Motion for its continuance for another year. I suggested then to hon. Members—and I adhere to that suggestion today—that if they treated the Army Act. 1955, as if it were a Bill, and made a speech appropriate to the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, namely, a speech confined to what is in the Act and nothing else, they would be in order.
The later Ruling to which the hon. Member referred was designed to make it clear that the Army Act, then and now, makes no provision for those activities of the Army Council which are the responsibility of the General Staff; that is to say, there is nothing in the Act which would authorise any debate or discussion upon operations or strategy, or the wider aspects of defence. That is not in the Act that we are asked to continue, and a discussion of it would be out of order.
Then Mr. Speaker went on to discuss whether the Grigg Report would be in order. He decided, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who asked:
The Army Act provides for the provision of certain forces. That is quite clear. When the matter comes up for debate, if we discuss it from the standpoint of a Third Reading debate, and everything which is not contained in the Act is excluded, surely it is permissible 10 discuss what the forces are doing. The numbers

are embodied in the Army Act, and it must be permissible to discuss their activities. So far as those activities impinge upon the recent inquiry conducted by Sir James Grigg, which is now before the House—it has been issued as a Command Paper—it is surely legitimate to consider various aspects of that Report, otherwise there seems no purpose in the debate. What are we to discuss if we do not discuss that?
Mr. Speaker then said:
It would not be in order to discuss what the troops are doing. The Bill makes provision for their discipline and administration and, in relation to the Quartermaster-General's Department, to the limited extent of requisitioning vehicles and billeting. I think that that is all that is concerned in the Act. It says nothing about what the troops are to do, except to obey orders—and the various rules of the Army.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order, Sir William. Would it be in order to ask whether you understand what this is all about?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in doubt about whether that would come under the heading of a point of order, but I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will, as soon as possible, make quite clear to the Committee the connection between his very lengthy quotation and this Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I have followed the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) with great interest. I am sure that hon. Members who have followed defence debates during the last two years must realise that my hon. and learned Friend is moving—perhaps rather slowly and tortuously—to what is certainly a very important point. It is whether the present procedure deserves to be reconsidered and whether this Amendment should be accepted. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend is making a case which deserves very serious consideration.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance.
The point I am seeking to make is that there is a particular definition on the continuation Order, according to the Rulings made by Mr. Speaker. It is a Bill which involves the responsibility of the Adjutant-General and it involves


part of the supply questions which come from it. In particular, it involves recruiting and all that is concerned with recruiting. I have come to an end of the quotations save for the reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, which I was just about to read when my right hon. Friend asked me to clarify the position.
Mr. Speaker said:
I used the word 'administration' in the Army sense. In so far as any matter that is raised by hon. Members is in the Act it will be in order. I am not going to make any Ruling in advance, but I should feel obliged to stop any hon. Member who went into a discussion of operational matters.
Then, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) who referred to the Ruling which Mr. Speaker quoted the previous year, Mr. Speaker went on to make it clear by saying:
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Act itself, he will see a paragraph headed 'Terms of Engagement.' The word 'terms' is used in the technical sense of the length of time in which they may engage themselves. It is rather like a lawyer's use of 'term of a lease'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1958; Vol. 594, c.1119–22.]
Thus, we have a situation which probably was not anticipated by the original Select Committee which considered this Bill, and which, none the less, has worked itself out by the process of time and experience in this House and by the Rulings of successive Speakers, and which gives the debate at the particular time of year at which it takes place—that is, in November—a useful function.
The first questions to consider are how the troops are being obtained, how the recruiting system is working following the abolition of National Service, and how affairs generally are proceeding. Once these matters have been discussed, the Estimates themselves come in for discussion and such matters as pay, conditions and any new problems that have arisen are considered. Also for discussion at that point is the tremendously important matter of what armament will be supplied to the men recruited. Simply to call up men, or to recruit them, and then not to provide them with arms, is an operation which has been indulged in quite a lot by this Government, although I realise that it would be out of order for me to develop that point.
Those remarks form the logical sequence of events, but perhaps we may now reverse the process, having the Estimates debate first, followed by discussion of the other items. By reversing the process hon. Members do not have an opportunity of concentrating their attention on one aspect before proceeding to the next. Instead, there is a general debate on the Estimates, there is not the slightest clue to what is happening, no new relevant recruiting figures are provided, and the debate is confined to recruiting at a time when a recruiting debate serves no useful purpose. I therefore urge the Government to disagree with the Select Committee. I do not think that the argument and the Rulings of the Speaker were fully considered by the Select Committee and I hope we shall have a satisfactory reply from the Government on this matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Government will give an equally reasoned and detailed reply in answer to the case that has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I approach this matter from a rather different point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been an indefatigable champion of the Army and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton has been an indefatigable champion of the Navy. Both hon. Members have contributed interesting speeches to this debate and they seem to have raised the question of what is the function of the Army and the Navy in this modern age. But we are discussing the matter of procedure, and I submit that, after the experience of the last two years of working of the procedure since the Select Committee reported, we are entitled to ask the House to reconsider the whole question of the way in which the Service Estimates are dealt with by this House.
In this year's Estimates, when hon. Members were considering the granting of £1,660 million of public money for the Services, the attendance of the House was an absolute scandal. I would, therefore, welcome any changes which would give hon. Members the satisfaction of knowing that we are really doing our duty by examining these questions from the point of view of the country in general and the taxpayer in particular.


Under the present procedure, we have debates on the Vote for manpower, followed by other debates which are telescoped into one day.
By the procedure this year, we were asked to vote £1,000 million of public money without any discussion at all. That resulted in some hon. Members on this side of the Committee doing what we thought was our duty to our constituents; we decided to call attention to this matter and to vote against certain Estimates. In doing that, while we thought we were doing our duty by voting against the decision of the Parliamentary Labour Party, instead of being given a vote of thanks from the party, we were ejected from it.
That is just one example of how the procedure of the House can be carried on when vast sums are passing through, almost on the nod. We had under this procedure a fairly full discussion on certain aspects of the Navy Estimates, but we found that, when we came to examine the Estimates, there was not sufficient time to scrutinise them in detail and, after the first Vote on the Army, the rest of the Vote, involving £550 million for the Air Estimates, could not be discussed.
As a result of the present procedure, huge sums of money are being rushed through Parliament with less consideration than, say, the Town Council of Northampton would devote to the construction of a new slaughterhouse. This scandal must be met by an alteration of the procedure, and I welcome the pertinacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who is urging the establishment of something on the lines of a Select Committee which will scrutinise these Estimates with the care and consideration they deserve.
I recall a speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), when he was the Leader of the Opposition. He was attacking the Estimates of the Labour Government at a time when the Labour Government were asking for far less than the present Government require for their Service Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the duty of the House carefully to scrutinise, to probe and to cleanse, to avoid bureaucracy having control of the expenditure of so

much money. If we had a Committee deliberating between November and before the Estimates are presented to the House, there would be an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides who have expert knowledge on these matters to bring their knowledge forward for the benefit of the Committee.

Mr. Wigg: I would like to inform my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Hughes) that I am not asking that the Estimates should go to a Select Committee. I am asking that, after the Secretaries of State for War and Air and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty have got their Estimates, we should cut out the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, to which my hon. Friend is referring, and take the Estimates in a Committee of secrecy upstairs. That Committee could then report back to the House after due deliberation. As has been pointed out, not many hon. Members appear to be interested in these matters and the composition would have to be decided by asking those who are interested to serve on the Committee, subject always to the Government maintaining their majority.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: I was coming to that point. I consider that this is a step towards getting at the root of the problem which we are considering, and that before the Estimates are presented to the House a Committee should be set up to examine carefully all the Estimates to see whether public expenditure can be reduced. I can give instances of where expenditure of the three Services has not been properly scrutinised. Let us take the Navy, for example. There has been some criticism of expenditure in connection with the Royal Yacht.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. I am sure that we all wish to keep the debate on this point as short as possible. I should like to know whether discussion of the Navy Supply Department is in order. If it is in order, it would be very convenient.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I am sorry to disappoint the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it would not be in order on this Amendment to discuss the question of Navy Supply.

Mr. Hughes: I was only going to refer to the Navy Estimates as an illustration. If this procedure to which I have referred had been adopted, we should have avoided the situation in which a hospital ship which was built under the rearmament programme later became the Royal Yacht. At that point, I will finish with my references to the Navy.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. In so far as the "Britannia" is a hospital ship, perhaps the Secretary of State for War could assist us.

The Temporary Chairman: That would be out of order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the "Britannia", because, as I see it, it would be out of order.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Thomas, I was on a point of order. I entirely agree that references to the "Britannia" as a yacht would be a matter for the Navy, but in so far as it is a hospital ship could we have guidance on whether she is an Army or a Navy hospital ship? I understand that the Army runs its own hospital ships and that most of the hospital ships belong to the Army. The Army has a private "navy" of its own. I saw a number of these ships in Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, during the week-end. They belong to the R.A.C. I submit that it is relevant to ascertain in which of these classes the "Britannia" is a hospital ship.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, but I should like to help the Committee. I have been following this argument, but I am now tied up in such a muddle that unless the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds to make this point and come to a conclusion I shall find it very difficult to give any help. I have understood the debate till now, but I am now becoming confused. I hope that we can keep to the point and then I shall be happy to help the Committee.

Mr. Paget: We were discussing the "Britannia", and then there arose the special aspect of her position as a hospital ship. I was hoping that the Minister would give us some assistance by telling us whether, as a hospital ship, she would be an Army or a Navy hospital ship.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has finished his point of order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was addressing the Committee. I would only say that I am not an expert on the classification of ships, but I understand that the "Britannia" is not a hospital ship at the moment and, therefore, the question does not arise.

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of order. As I understood my hon. Friend's remarks, they were directed to anticipating the situation arising from what we have been assured so often by the Government is her real and principal function.

Mr. Hughes: I am indebted to my hon. and learned Friend for clarifying the point that I was seeking to make. We know that the Secretary of State for War is in a muddle. Our duty is to try to get him out of the muddle. I was only making this point as an illustration of how, if there had been a Select Committee of this House, dealing with a certain Service, it might have avoided a waste of public money. I leave the matter there.
Let us turn to the question of the Army. There is undoubtedly an urgent need for a Committee carefully to examine the detailed Army Estimates from the point of view of the taxpayer. I am interested in the taxpayers' point of view. When a Minister brings forward Army Estimates in which there is reference to the word "establishment" I want to know what this establishment is. Since the Ministry of Supply has been liquidated a number of establishments have been handed over to the Secretary of State for War. If such a Committee—the sort of Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley wants—were set up, some of us might, by a strange turn of fortune, be serving on it. I must say that by the machinery of this House I have never served on such a Committee myself, but I should dearly like to be on this Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley so that we could probe certain elements of expenditure which I believe to be unjustifiable, expensive and against the national interest.
I want to enlighten the Secretary of State for War. I do not know whether


he knows as much as I do about certain establishments which are included in the Army expenditure. When the Ministry of Supply was liquidated the establishment known as the Microbiological Station at Porton was transferred to the Army, but there is nothing in the Estimates that we had last year to give any hon. Member an inkling that there is such a place as Porton. Porton is on Salisbury Plain, and there is at that place a very secret establishment where, I believe, very interesting scientific experiments are being carried out which come under the Army Vote.
I believe that this station at Porton, which is now carried on under the auspices of the Secretary of State for War, should be transferred holus bolus to the Minister of Health. I have not been able to get very far with this. I was waiting to ask about it on the last Army Estimates, but when we got to them they were rushed through without my being given one opportunity of asking the Secretary of State for War about the activities—

The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. This Amendment is more limited than appeared to him. We are discussing the deletion of the words "month of August in the". It is a question of the time factor to which the hon. Gentleman ought obviously to be turning his attention.

Mr. Hughes: But, Mr. Thomas, I was following the argument about the need for greater scrutiny of the expenditure of the Army. This is a question of time. Obviously, if a Select Committee is sitting there will be days and days of opportunity for examining and questioning public expenditure, whereas if the matter is rushed through here without any discussion we have no opportunity of questioning items of Parliamentary expenditure, which is what the House of Commons is for.
If our Amendment were carried and the necessary machinery were set up, we should have an opportunity of calling attention to public expenditure which is now hidden in a mass of verbiage. I want an opportunity to examine very carefully this huge expenditure of about £500 million, and that is why I support the Amendment. Exactly the same applies to the Royal Air Force. I do not

know whether we can discuss the Royal Air Force on this Amendment, but I would refer to Blue Streak—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, realise that the Amendment deals with the timetable and proposes the deletion of the words "month of August in the". If he would direct his attention to the Amendment it would be of advantage to us all.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Mr. Thomas. I understand that this is an intricate matter of procedure. If we had not a timetable at all, or if we had a better, more expansive and more elastic timetable, I submit that we should have an opportunity of discussing such things as Blue Streak and analysing them long before this huge expenditure was incurred.
To summarise what I have said, I should welcome any kind of alteration in the procedure for discussing the expenditure of these enormous sums, because I believe it is the duty of the House of Commons very carefully to watch these huge Estimates, which are such a substantial part of our Budget. If the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley were accepted by the Government, the door would be open. I want to push the door open a little further still. Where I fail to follow my hon. Friend is with respect to this being carried on with the utmost secrecy. If that is so, then I must at this point raise certain doubts and questions.
I should like to know whether the purpose is to prevent this information getting to the enemy, or whether it is an attempt to prevent the information getting to the taxpayers. It is here that I disagree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the same procedure as is applied to Estimates should be employed. Then we could delete from the report anything which should not be disclosed in the interests of security. But we must be very careful about this, because I believe that very often the formula, "It is not in the public interest to disclose this", is used to hide information not from a potential enemy, but from the British taxpayer.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Since we have plenty of time at our disposal, we ought to be generous to and lenient with my hon.


Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), because all that he is seeking to do is to make the speech—he has already achieved 75 per cent. of it—which he intended to make when we were discussing the Estimates. He failed on that occasion. He has succeeded now, although throughout his speech he has been completely irrelevant. What he has said has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: This is what always happens in Committee. At the outset of our debates hon. Members are wholly irrelevant and get away with it, and then, when somebody rises to address the Chamber and present a considered, logical and cogent argument in support of or against an Amendment, supporting either the Government or the Opposition, he is immediately informed that he is completely out of order. I shall do my best to clarify the situation, because that is obviously what the Committee needs very badly.
It is a very simple proposition which is before the Committee. It amounts to whether the Army and Air Force Act should expire at the end of August, 1962, or at the end of December, 1962. It is as simple as that. I gathered from the remarkable oration of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who quoted extensively from the OFFICIAL REPORT, including a reference which I made on one occasion—I believe it was an auspicious occasion—that he apparently had some indication from the Government that they would accept the Amendment. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not rise and say, "Let us not have all this talk and bother; we accept the Amendment." I presume that that is what he will do, but just in case I happen to be wrong, I will say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. and learned Friend.
Let us consider for a moment the procedure for dealing with these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire suggested that we ought to discuss the Estimates before the end of the

year. That would be a completely mistaken policy. The Estimates have to be prepared in the Service Departments and then go through the Ministry of Defence for the preparation of the White Paper on Defence, which is usually available to hon. Members about February of each year and is debated at the end of February or the beginning of March. Clearly, the Government could not be expected to agree to discussions on the Estimates even in the secrecy of a Committee, until the White Paper had been prepared with the consent of the Defence Committee of the Government and the Cabinet itself, and that could not happen before the end of the year.
It is a very difficult matter to prepare defence Estimates. All kinds of people have to be consulted and their views heard, and usually there is considerable controversy among the representatives of the Service Departments and in the Cabinet and in the Defence Committee before conclusions are reached. So that would be completely out of the question.
I want to address myself now to the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who knows so much about these matters. He has been very industrious in his study of these problems, and we are very grateful to him, as, indeed, we are grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is that, instead of coming to a conclusion about the continuation of the Army and Air Force Acts in August, we should allow it to proceed until the end of the year.
There is a great deal to be said for that, because when we come to a consideration of the Bills, which precede the Acts, we shall be able to consider such matters as whether we want to have an Army and Air Force at all. This thought has often occurred to me. Before we come to the Estimates, the White Paper and all the details of defence embodied in it and in the various Service Estimates, there is something to be said for deciding, first, whether we want an Army or Air Force at all.
That is not a matter of Estimates. It is a matter of policy, of philosophy. It is also a matter of strategy. Therefore, there is something to be said for it. We could have an excellent debate on the


question whether we want an Army and Air Force at all, because all kinds of considerations arise.
Following on that, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley suggested that it might go to a Committee and that in that Committee there should be complete secrecy. That is what I gathered from what my hon. Friend said. He may wish to correct me.

Mr. Wigg: If my right hon. Friend is saying that my suggestion is that the continuation Order should go to a Select Committee, that is not so. I am suggesting that after the Secretary of State has got his numbers on Vote A what is now regarded as the Committee stage of the Estimates should be taken upstairs.

Mr. Shinwell: Although, at first sight, there appear to be certain advantages in that proposal, if it were accepted by the Government, I believe that it is outweighed by the disadvantages. The advantages I see stem from what some of us on this side of the Committee, and on the Government side, have suggested about the need for consultation between the Opposition and the Government on matters of defence. Consultation should undoubtedly be held in secret.
Hon. Members will be aware that I have often made this suggestion. It has been rejected by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the ground that it would disarm criticism. I have never believed that that is a valid objection. Some of us could discuss with members of the Government questions on defence matters which are regarded as confidential. We should, naturally, be expected to respect the confidence the Government reposed in us. If we felt that it was impossible to accept such conditions, we should obviously refuse to enter into consultations. It is a matter for consideration. There are certain advantages in having the discussions in secret.
On the other hand, it would be rather objectionable from the standpoint of those of us—I should say the majority of us—who feel that any discussions we have on the subject of Estimates should not be held in secret.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend has not followed me. I do not suggest that there should not be discussion. When the Secretary of State introduces the Estimates,

the Government get the Votes they want. To do this, the Government put down the Votes they want for the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. This certainly happened this year. The Opposition then choose the Votes they want to discuss.
The result this year was that almost the whole of the time was taken up on the Navy—there were about 10 minutes left for the Army. The Air Force was not discussed. I do not want to say anything derogatory of any hon. Gentleman, but it is the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, that during the Committee stage there were times when there was hardly anybody in the Chamber, except those sitting on the two Front Benches. It seems to me, therefore, that there should be a procedure under which hon. Gentlemen can volunteer, if they want, to go to a Committee upstairs where these matters can be discussed. I suggest that they should be discussed in secret, because these matters tend to become so complex and so tied up with security that they are quite unreal unless they are conducted behind closed doors.

Mr. Shinwell: I go a long way with my hon. Friend in the matter of referring such questions to a Committee. I should prefer references to a Standing Committee upstairs. I am not sure about secrecy. That matter should be discussed.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but his argument on secrecy falls outside the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: I respect your Ruling, Mr. Thomas. Indeed, it accords with my view about the relevance of the matter. The subject arose in the course of previous discussion, and I was merely following it up.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. Do I understand that the position now is that, my hon. Friends having developed an extraordinarily constitutional proposition about secret Committees for the expenditure of my constituents' hard-earned incomes, I cannot even rise and say that I do not like the idea?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We are now discussing an Amendment which would extend the period of the Army Act. We are not concerned here with methods of discussing it.

Mr. Hale: May I seek your further guidance, Mr. Thomas? If I cannot make any vocal representations, am I permitted, by the expression on my face, to express disapprobation without being charged with conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that might be permissible.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Thomas. Is it within your knowledge that the reason for the Amendment is a memorandum submitted by the Clerk of the House asking the Committee to consider this matter? The matter now becomes before the Committee. If we cannot discuss the procedural form, it lands us in just the difficulty of which the Clerk complained, namely, the opening argument is admitted by one Chairman but denied by another.

The Temporary Chairman: I am very sorry, but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that all I have to do is to observe the rules of order as long as I am in the Chair. That is what I am trying to do.

Mr. Shinwell: May I be permitted to interrupt the proceedings? I was about to conclude my remarks by expressing the opinion that, if a proposal of the kind suggested in the Amendment is acceptable to the Government and if it should lead to matters of this sort being referred to a Standing Committee, I should welcome it. There was much validity in the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire about the desirability of there being a full expression of hon. Members' views on the expenditure of the Service Departments. I held that view when I was responsible for the submission of Estimates. I held that view many years ago when I was Financial Secretary to the War Office, before I was Secretary of State for War.
When we are spending vast sums of money—or, even if we are not spending vast sums of money, when we are spending

the taxpayers' money—it is very desirable that hon. Members should investigate as meticulously as possible in this Committee, or in the House of Commons, just how the money is spent. Even if it is not permissible to discuss it at length in the course of all those proceedings, I hope that the Minister will take into consideration what has been said so that next year we will have the opportunity of discussing more closely the details of defence expenditure.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: There is no doubt that there is a very great deal in what has been said about the need for greater time for and much closer scrutiny of the items of defence expenditure during the Committee stage of the proceedings on the Estimates. If that flowed from this proposal I would certainly be disposed to support it, but whether it does so or not I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
The proposal really concerns whether or no we should discuss the Measure in June or in November, and it is sought to alter the date on which it comes to an end. As I understand, the arguments in favour of what is in the Bill are contained in a letter submitted to the Committee for its consideration by the Clerk of the House.
Briefly, those arguments are that this procedure would be more tidy; that we would have our defence debate for two days, followed by our debates on the Votes A, and then the proceedings in the Committee—which can hardly be graced by the name of debates. We would then proceed to pass the Bill. In other words, we would do things in a tidy manner. The Clerk points out that if that procedure were adopted, hon. Members would very clearly understand what was likely to be in order in the debates.
That sounds very well, but I fear that the result of that procedure would be our reaching a position where there was no discussion of the Bill at all. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley would see to it that there was a discussion, but that would be the tendency. If we had a series of debates, first on defence, then on the various Votes A, then on the Defence Estimates, and then on this Bill, the Government's


tendency would be to try to treat it as something that could be disposed of fairly quickly.
The very business of this House would lead to that event, because in June and July we are crowded with business. Even now, an important Measure like the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill has had to be discussed at ten o'clock at night because there was no other time for it, and we have another statement today as to when we should continue that discussion. Those with any experience at all of this House know that we have very little time in June and July.
It is then, normally, that we have most of the all-night sittings—on the Finance Bill, for instance. At that time, the Government are trying to get through the Bills they have started, and they are trying to get the Finance Bill through, and if the various Measures are lengthy and important we have long Report stages—

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not some misunderstanding? I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has followed my argument? I understand the proposition to be that instead of having a debate on the Army and Air Force (Continuation) Bill in June, in preparation for the continuation of that Measure about the end of August, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) suggests that that debate should come towards the end of the year. Surely, then, after we have had the Summer Recess, and after the Queen's Speech has been disposed of, there is much more time for consideration than there is in June?

Mr. Willis: I am glad that my right hon. Friend is with me. The precise burden of my argument is that the time proposed in the Bill is the worst possible time of year for this discussion, and that the whole tendency will be to try to treat it as something that can be dismissed at ten o'clock or eleven o'clock at night. My hon. Friend has suggested that we should leave the procedure as it is so that the Bill would be discussed in November when there was time for it to be discussed properly.
Once again, anyone conversant with our procedure knows that towards the end of October and the beginning of

November the House is quite frequently almost empty, and sometimes rises at a quarter to seven, or eight o'clock. The reason for Chat is that the Government have not then got their legislative programme into swing, and put forward, after the Queen's Speech, a number of quite small Measures. Incidentally, those are the occasions when the hon. Member who has his eye on the House can usually get an Adjournment debate lasting from about 7 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
That is the time of year when we should have this debate. We should not so arrange our business as to pile up business in June and July—and then add to the pile. We should be seeking means of distributing the business more evenly over the whole year. Instead of that, the Government, not satisfied with having got the House into its present mess—with all sorts of legislation cluttering the Order Paper and not capable of being dealt with—seek to add to the mess. I cannot conceive of anything more fantastic—talk about making confusion worse confounded; this proposal certainly does that.
What is in this Bill? What is it all in aid of? It is in aid of making it tidy by having all the Service debates at the same time of year. I agree that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) showed by his quotations from previous debates, the debate on this Measure is of a much more limited character, but it still covers one of the most important aspects of the Army and of the Air Force.
Something of such vital concern, so important that it almost causes a split in the Government ranks, needs a good debate. And it is as important as that. It is a matter with which I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is himself most seriously concerned at present. But what he is now saying is, "We will not give you a fair opportunity to discuss this subject. We will try to slip it in when there is no time to discuss it." That is not treating the House as it should be treated, and I should certainly have thought that all the arguments were on my hon. Friend's side.
There is, of course, the other argument that if we accept this proposal we shall have all the Service debates in the first few months of the year, and then have nothing. That, too, seems to be quite


wrong. It would be much better to have the debates spread a little—and they could be spread by acceptance of my hon. Friend's Amendment.
I hope that the Government will not be too "sticky" on this matter. There is no great principle involved; it is simply a matter of what is for the best convenience of the House—that is all. Anyone examining the matter in the light of how best we can conduct our affairs, can only come to the conclusion that my hon. Friend's suggestion is the wisest one.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: It would be a pity not to accept the Select Committee's proposal. The point just made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about spreading the Service debates through the year would be better met if the proposals in the Bill as it now stands were accepted. The debate on the discipline on the Army would arise in June or July, giving a longer spread to the Service debates than is the case with a debate that takes place—as happened last year—on 25th November. We would then resume the Service debates in February, and complete them shortly afterwards. In point of time, I think that the hon. Member will discover that the argument is against him.
Secondly, it will be within the recollection of the Committee that the debates that we have had on the Army and Air Force Bill in November during past years have rather suffered in that it has been very difficult for hon. Members to keep in order. I have looked up some of the previous debates. It has been necessary for Mr. Speaker to begin, on some occasions, by warning an hon. Member that most of the speech that he proposed to make would be out of order and for him to read once again the rules of the race, as it were, and to tell hon. Members how they could keep in order. On a number of times hon. Members have had to be stopped because they have been tempted to stray into discussing matters which were not part of the Bill.
If we had the debate on the Defence and Service Estimates in the early part of the year and settled the broad principles concerning the Services, such as the question of manpower and equipment, for the year we would be able much more pointedly to discuss the discipline

of the Army and then the Air Force. I therefore think that it would be a pity if we turned down the very sensible suggestion which is to be found in Appendix II to the Select Committee's Report.

Mr. Paget: What the hon. Gentleman said about the earlier debates was true. It took a considerable time to work out what was the field of discussion. However, we did work it out. I think that I am right in saying that during the last debate not one hon. Member was pulled up for being out of order.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right about that. Three or four hon. Members were pulled up, some of them more than once. That is not extraordinary. Things have improved this year, but in the past that has been a difficulty. I therefore think that it would be better if we discussed this matter in June.

Mr. Michael Foot: There have been so many clarifications of the situation by hon. Members that it may seem an extraordinary confession of obtuseness on my part to say that I am still somewhat confused. There may be one or two hon. Members who are in the same position as myself. Therefore, I hope that an attempt further to clarify the situation will be of benefit to hon. Members.
Obviously, there is enormous force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the onus is on the Government to state why this change should be made. The business of the House is much more cluttered up during June and July than it is during November and December. I do not say that that is always the case, but it is frequently the case. Therefore, the onus of persuading the Committee to adopt the change rests with the Government and they have to produce powerful arguments as to why the change should be made.
The speech of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has not helped to persuade us to accept the idea put forward by the Government. What he appears to wish to do in some curious way is to alter the content of the debates on the Bill. He seemed to be suggesting that, under his arrangement, things which might be in order for discussion in


November would be out of order in June-I do not see how that can be the case.
It may be that this is the excuse of the hon. Gentleman. He may have based his argument partly on what was stated in the letter of the Clerk and has strained it further, because the crucial sentence, which appears on page 83 of the Select Committee's Report, is this:
Under the present system the debates on the continuation motions take place early in the Session, and are naturally regarded as preliminary to deciding the matters to be debated on Defence and the Service Estimates, and the strong feeling in the House that the Motions really set the whole defence machinery in motion has made it almost impossible for the Chair to keep the debates relevant.
I do not suggest that the Clerk was making the proposition in anything like as strong terms as the hon. Member for Stroud. However, that sentence appears to suggest that, if the Government's proposal is accepted, the debate on the Bill will be even more restricted. I do not think that anyone can say that that is an improper meaning to place on those words.
5.15 p.m.
We understand exactly why the Government want this change. They are always in favour of having debates limited as much as possible. However, this Bill has a rather sacred place in English history. It is not a small affair. Anyone who suggests that we should limit the form of debate on a Bill such as this is proposing what could be a quite considerable constitutional change. At any rate, the Government are dealing with a matter which affects a very important Bill in our Constitution.
Therefore, if the real reason why the Government want to make this change is that they want the debate on the Bill more limited than it is at present, then they ought to put forward a stronger case than appears in the letter of the learned Clerk. I do not think that the Clerk makes out a full case for imposing the limitations which apparently are in the mind of the Government and which were certainly implied in the speech of the hon. Member for Stroud, who has been the only defender of the Government's proposal.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), because I missed the first few sentences of his speech and, therefore, may have missed

the crucial part, but I do not think that he suggested that his Amendment would remedy a much bigger disease than it applies to. I will not go into what he said about a Committee of secrecy, because I understand that, although that matter was discussed fairly amply at the beginning of the debate, it has since become out of order. I understand that my hon. Friend suggested that if his Amendment were accepted it would enable the Committee to have a much more detailed study of the Estimates. Whether that was done in secrecy or not is irrelevant to the question.
I do not see how his Amendment will greatly assist in that respect. If my hon. Friend can explain more fully why he thinks that his Amendment would have these beneficial results, I am sure that more of us would be persuaded to vote with him in the Division Lobby if he carries the Amendment to a Division. I would be extremely grateful to him if he would elaborate on that matter. It may be that this Amendment should be taken with other Amendments which my hon. Friend has tabled. If that is so, it would assist the Committee if he could say how the passage of this Amendment would fortify the arguments for later Amendments which he intends to move.
As I have said, the onus rests on the Government to persuade the Committee as to why this change should be made. Certainly, there must be very powerful reasons if the Government wish to restrict and make the Bill a lesser occasion in our Parliamentary year than it has been for some years past and during earlier times when it played a very important part in the life of Parliament. It is a curious situation that, having had the Select Committee to examine all these matters and having the contributions made by a large number of hon. Members in this debate, many of whom are experts on the subject, we still have not got anywhere near to solving the real problem of how hon. Members will have a proper control over the Defence Estimates.
Whatever his view about the incidents over the Estimates earlier this year may be, I do not believe that there is one hon. Member who would claim that this Committee has proper control over defence expenditure. This was one of


the purposes of having the Select Committee. I do not say that it was the primary purpose, because I know that the Select Committee dealt with many other matters. The fact that we are discussing the timetable shows that it relates partly to this Measure. The Select Committee examined the matter with great care and took evidence from many experts, but still we do not seem to be getting any nearer to solving the problem of how we are to have full Parliamentary control over the money that is spent and, indeed, over recruitment and the other activities of the Army.
We have not solved the problem yet. Certainly, the Measure that the Government are proposing does not solve it. I do not think that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley really solves it. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not claim that it does, but only that it moves slightly in the right direction or, at least, prevents the Government from moving in the wrong direction. I hope that at least the Government will explain much more fully than they have done so far the purpose behind the change which they are now making.

Mr. Richard Marsh: This is the first time that I have had the temerity to intervene in this type of debate. The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has made is very much the reason why I have put my name to a large number of the Amendments. This is a subject which should be discussed at considerable length. It cannot be discussed too widely and I certainly do not think that it can be discussed too often. I apologise for arriving late in the debate. I was involved in another issue elsewhere in connection with the dock strike. I was unavoidably detained and missed the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
One thing which is extremely worrying from what one has heard of the debate so far is that only one hon. Member opposite has felt fit to contribute to it. There is a great deal in the point that if the Government make or suggest a change, it is not unreasonable to expect that Government Members should participate and give their reasons why the change is justified. Surely, it is

their job to justify a change and it is our job to inquire into the reasons for it and, if necessary, to oppose it. Only one hon. Member opposite has taken any part in the debate, despite the fact that the Amendment deals with a change affecting debates of a particularly important type.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), the one hon. Member who has spoken from the Government side, was not particularly convincing in his arguments. If the Government had a particularly important point of principle one could understand it, but the only argument put forward in the evidence of the learned Clerk was, not to change the character of the debate, but to make it more convenient for the Chair to control the debate. That is an extraordinary argument.
One is entitled to ask what is the main concern of the Government. In having the debate in July instead of November, do they see particular advantages to the debate on the Army and Air Force Bill, or is it merely a question of enabling the Chair to control the debate that much more easily?

Mr. Paget: Will my hon. Friend help me? I have been considerably confused about this. Why is a debate on the some Order more easy to control in July than in November? I have tried to understand the learned Clerk's point on that. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can throw light on it.

Mr. Marsh: I would not for one moment presume to attempt to interpret the reasons why—

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: May I help my hon. and learned Friend? In justice to the learned Clerk, whose views carried a great deal of weight with the Select Committee, I should, perhaps, say that what he had in mind was the temptation of hon. Members to stray rather widely on these big defence issues at a time when defence policy was under consideration. Possibly that was in the learned Clerk's mind and, in justice to him, while agreeing wholly with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has just said, I think that that should be said.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for that intervention, but I still feel very much that one does not change the timetables of


debates in the House of Commons to make life easier for the Chair. It is the duty of the Chair, in which it is entitled to expect the support of hon. Members, to keep the debate in order. While that may well be difficult from time to time, the Chair has other remedies than changing the timetable for dealing with certain Bills.
The simple issue is whether the Army and Air Force Bill shall be debated at the end of the year or in July, or alternatively, which is, perhaps, the main point, whether it should be debated before or after the defence debate. I should have thought that to look at the position merely from the point put forward by the learned Clerk—that because the Bill is debated as at present makes hon. Members tend to roam somewhat widely in the course of the debate—is a poor and a surprising reason for changing the timetable in this way.
Surely, the important thing is that we should discuss the Army and Air Force Bill as fully and in as great detail as possible. If other methods can be devised by which it can be debated at greater length or more fully, that is of advantage, but anything which is based on argument that is intended to cut down the amount of debate and to limit discussion on the Bill is, unless there are extremely good reasons for it, very much against the public interest.
The significant feature is that although the Government have come forward with their proposals, to which there is an Amendment, with the one exception of the hon. Member for Stroud we have heard no views from Government Members opposite. It is a rather worrying tendency which has happened on several recent occasions that, when we debate these issues, the Opposition frequently makes speech after speech and it ceases to be a debate because hon. Members opposite, when they are with us, sit back and take no part in the proceedings.
If the Army and Air Force Bill followed the defence debate, it might appear to be in danger of becoming something automatic in which one dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" to put the Bill in line with the defence debate. One of the biggest problems facing the defence debates and discussions about defence arises very much from the grave difficulty of obtaining sufficient troops. Anything

in a Bill affecting, as this one does, discipline and other matters intimately concerning the troops could usefully be discussed before the defence debates rather than after them.
My final point, which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, is the problem of whether there is need to curtail discussion on the Bill. Whatever arguments one may have—and it is a good thing to discuss and argue these matters at considerable length—nobody can deny that there is far too little discussion upon all aspects of the Services, far too little discussion of the amounts of public money spent on them and far too little discussion upon issues which affect the lives and living conditions of a large number of people in the Army. If it is suggested that we should cut down the amount of discussion on the Bill, that would be very much against the interest of the public and of the House of Commons. If, alternatively, it is suggested that that is not the intention and that the objective is, not to cut down the amount of discussion, but to enable the Chair to keep order more easily, I submit with respect that it is not the job of the House of Commons to work out its timetables or to devise its legislation for that purpose. There may well be need for different Standing Orders or for the Chairman of the Committee to take a different line from time to time, but that is certainly not the way to deal with that type of problem.
I hope, therefore, that consideration will be given to the Amendment. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not merely sit back and wait for their Front Bench to make its contribution. This is a Parliamentary matter. We are discussing what Parliament should do. It is not a party issue. One would have thought that hon. Members opposite would participate in the debate and discuss the subject, and that we might well reach the position that the Amendment would be withdrawn or, alternatively, that the Government would decide to accept it. It is intolerable that we should discuss issues which affect as closely and as intimately as this one does the running of the Chamber without contributions, whether of value or otherwise, from hon. Members opposite.
I hope that when the Minister replies, he will make it clear that on an issue


as small as this he is able to accommodate the Committee and that hon. Members opposite will be able to make their contributions, so that they can at least show that they have views about how the House of Commons can conduct its business.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) invited me to clarify the position. I will endeavour to do that. He referred to the claims that I have made. The only claim that I have made is that I have read the Report of the Select Committee, the Bill before us, the 1955 Act and the Report on which it was based. It seems to me that that claim is not shared by some hon. Members who, in consequence, find themselves in some confusion.
In all fairness, it should be made clear that the actual proposals in the Bill—not my Amendment—are not the Government's proposals at all. If hon. Members would look at the original Bill introduced on 25th January, 1961, or care to read the report of the Second Reading on the 2nd February they will find that the Government accepted the proposition put forward by the original Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is quite right. We are dealing with a matter of great historical and constitutional importance. I do not want to refer to my part in it, but it just happens to be that I wrote the Memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on 4th May, 1954: It begins:
The Bill of Rights lays down 'That the raising or keeping a standing army within the Kingdome in time of peace unlesse it be with consent of Parlyament is against law'.
Nothing could be more fundamental than that to this country and the privileges of this House in discussion of this matter. What the Select Committee then recommended and the House and the Government subsequently accepted was that there should be an affirmative Order praying Her Majesty to continue the Bill in operation for a year, year by year, that it should be brought before the House for four years, and that in the fifth year it should go to a Select Committee. The date on which the Bill came into operation was the 31st December, the Government accepted the proposal, without variation, and the Bill went to

a Select Committee upstairs. The Committee received a communication from the Clerk of the House of Commons, printed on page 83 of the Select Committee's Report, asking the Committee to consider altering the date. The learned Clerk's case was directed to the relevance of the debate.
The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) are right to the point. For surely whenever the continuation Order is debated the Chair has control of the debate? Why should it be in order at one time and out of order at another? My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has not himself studied the debate. The great heresy which crept in arose because the Chair allowed discussion on pay. Surely, the one subject which is out of order is pay. It is governed not by legislation but by the exercise of the Prerogative. The second heresy is that whilst the opening paragraph of the 1955 Act deals with the terms of enlistment we strayed from their issue into discussing the conditions of service. We certainly did not get into difficulties through any serious attempt to discuss the wider issues of strategy.

Mr. Mayhew: I was trying to interpret what was in the mind of the learned Clerk, because in his memorandum he states:
Under the present system the debates on the continuation motions take place early in the Session, and are naturally regarded as preliminary to deciding the matters to be debated on Defence and the Service Estimates.
I was trying to interpret, in fairness, what was in the mind of the learned Clerk.

Mr. Wigg: That is a matter for a psychiatrist. I am concerned about the content of the Bill. Neither my hon. Friend nor I is a medical authority. We cannot decide what is in the learned Clerk's mind. I submit that the difficulty did not arise because the House wanted to discuss strategy or great issues of foreign affairs, but because it tried to discuss pay and conditions of service. Therefore, it seems to me that the arguments of my hon. Friend in terms of the relevancy of the debate are not valid.
The second argument is that there is a long gap which would be filled if the


Continuation Order were debated in June. Of course, there is and some of us have tried to put it right by raising defence issues on the Appropriation Bill.
The arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, with great effect, is that we must accept that the vacuum argument has no validity at all.
But, if the Government accept my Amendment, it still leaves us with a problem which worries my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, and it certainly worries me. I think that at one time it worried my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) but, apparently, it does not worry him so much today. This is the problem of how the House of Commons keeps control over the Service Estimates. How can those hon. Members whose interests are other than defence obtain a synoptic view of our defence policy, and how can they judge and discuss the importance of one weapon against another?
It seems to me that the only way this can be done is first to ensure that there is adequate discussion in Committee of all three Service Estimates. That would clearly be an improvement on our present proceedings. If we are to argue the question of relevancy, I commend hon. Members to read the debate on the last Navy Estimates to see how much of that was in order. In the absence of adequate information, we discuss whatever happens to be politically appropriate at the time, and that lands us in very great difficulty. In the absence of any better suggestion I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and then to consider our procedures on the Estimates. In my opinion, having got Vote A, the Estimates could then be taken to a Standing Committee upstairs where those hon. Members from both sides of the House who wish to attend could go and question the Ministers and raise whatever points they wish. It seems to me that once that happens and we have a real discussion about the Armed Forces, the House must be prepared to agree to some degree of secrecy. We cannot ask Ministers to be candid if their words are then to be bandied about on the front pages of every newspaper. If the House of Commons wants to obtain information about the Services

which would enable hon. Members to form responsible opinions, the price of secrecy has to be paid for it. I am prepared to pay that price.

Mr. John Cronin: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for his additional clarification. He moved the Amendment in his usual admirable way and I am sure that we all agree that he has a massive and encyclopædic knowledge of defence matters. I personally feel prejudiced automatically in favour of any Amendment that bears my hon. Friend's name.
We have had in some ways a rather unsatisfactory debate because, apart from the brief intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), we have had no opportunity of hearing anything from hon. Members opposite. It has been a one-sided debate. This is rather surprising when one bears in mind that many hon. Members opposite have served in the Air Force and the Army and might have made some useful contributions to the debate. I think that most of us were grievously surprised when we heard the Secretary of State for War intervene in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to say that he was muddled.

Mr. Profumo: I merely said that the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was muddling me.

Mr. Cronin: I am grateful for that intervention, because the impression the right hon. Gentleman gave me and my hon. Friends was that he was in a state of complete muddle. In fact, I was so concerned that I wondered whether we should move to report Progress to enable the right hon. Gentleman to study the matter better. Nevertheless, we accept his assurance that he is now in full understanding of the main points of the debate.
The arguments in favour of or against the Amendment are somewhat narrowly balanced and the decision in its favour is probably of a marginal nature. We have to bear in mind that the Amendment is completely contrary to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Bill.


Some of my hon. Friends served on that Committee which certainly produced an admirable Report and was very skilfully presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer).
One has the impression, however, that the Select Committee put rather undue weight on the views of the Clerk of the House. It is proper that it should give weight to those views but there must be other considerations. Paragraph 2 on page iii of the Committee's Special Report states:
The Clerk of the House, however, submitted that the date of expiry of the Acts should be amended to 31st July, 1962, instead of the end of 1962, in order that the sequence of debates on the Services which obtained prior to 1955 should be restored. Your Committee agree with his opinion that the system whereby the Army and Air Force (annual) Bills were discussed in the summer after the general debates on the Defence White Paper and the Estimates led to a clearer understanding of the purpose of the annual Acts.
It is noteworthy that the Select Committee did not produce any additional arguments. It simply accepted the views of the Clerk of the House.
We should turn now to what the Clerk of the House actually said. Several of my hon. Friends have quoted sentences, but we ought to get this absolutely clear because the whole of the debate hinges on this opinion. He is reported as follows on page 83 of the Report in Appendix 11:
Owing to the fact that at present these Acts expire at the end of the year, debates on these motions have to take place in November or early December. Under the old system these Acts expired on 31st July and consequently the Army and Air Force (annual) Bills, which were brought in on the Reports of Votes A for the three services being agreed to by the House, were discussed during the early summer. I would submit that this led to a clearer understanding of the purpose which the annual Acts had. First there had been the debate on the Defence White Paper giving the widest possible debate on the general defence plan covering all three services. Then there had been the debates on the separate services which decided the role each should play in the defence plan and the number of men, types of weapons, etc., needed to carry out that role. Lastly came the annual Bill which dealt with the discipline of the forces, the size and role of which had already been fixed.
5.45 p.m.
It seems to me that the Clerk of the House is thinking entirely in terms of logical sequence, that we considered first

the White Paper and then separately the three Services and then, and only finally, the Army and Air Force Act. I should have thought that there was perhaps an argument in favour of putting the Army and Air Force Act first on logical grounds, simply because that Act is the Act which enables the Army and the Air Force to exist. It could hardly be more logical than to debate their premise, the very existence of the Services, before going into the question of their development and their use and the amounts of expenditure on them.
A further paragraph in the memorandum submitted by the Clerk of the House states:
Under the present system the debates on the continuation motions take place early in the Session, and are naturally regarded as preliminary to deciding the matters to be debated on Defence and the Service Estimates, and the strong feeling in the House that the Motions really set the whole defence machinery in motion has made it almost impossible for the Chair to keep the debates relevant. I would respectfully urge the Committee to amend the date of the expiry of the present Acts to 31st July, 1962, instead of the end of 1962, and thereby enable the old sequence of debates to be restored.
I am sure that it would be agreed that it is not a satisfactory arrangement to alter the procedure of the House simply to make things easy for the Chair, because we are in the happy position of having the Chair always occupied by an able occupant, and I think that the Chair can look after itself extremely well in all conditions.
This argument seems to me of very doubtful value indeed. It appears to me that the Select Committee has not produced any arguments of its own. It has been unduly influenced by arguments of an entirely procedural nature when this is not an entirely procedural matter. It is nothing like it. It is a matter of practical, political, and constitutional importance. To treat it as a procedural matter would be the antithesis of our proper function in this Committee.
I should like to turn the attention of the Committee to some of the practical considerations that arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) dealt very well with the point that there is always a mass of business accumulating before the House of Commons towards the end of the summer period and, therefore, there is a tendency for all business to be rather hurried and


perhaps ill-considered and ill-digested. Another important point is that obviously the Army and Air Force Act requires careful consideration and preparation before it is drafted and printed. Obviously, this could be done much more helpfully and usefully during the Summer Recess than during the anxious and hurried times towards the end of the Summer Session. I suggest that on these purely practical grounds it would be much more satisfactory if this matter were given consideration after the Summer Recess.
Another practical consideration is that it is always possible for some unexpected difficulty to arise in the technical preparation of a matter like this. There may be some breakdown in the printing trade, as has happened in the past. Numerous considerations can arise which might prevent the proper distribution of the papers concerned in these matters.
Another aspect is that during the winter period there is no routine opportunity to debate defence in Government time. If the Secretary of State were to give us some assurance that we could have a debate on defence in Government time during the winter period, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley might be tempted to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend is straying into a second misconception. His first argument was a practical one about printing. There is no printing involved. All that happens at the time of year that we are discussing is that the Government put a Motion on the Order Paper praying Her Majesty to continue the Act in being. So there is no printing difficulty at all.

Mr. Cronin: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I think that he does not quite understand me. There is still a good deal of printing involved.

Mr. Wigg: I assure my hon. Friend that there is absolutely no printing at all involved. As long as there is somebody on the Government side who can write twenty words, that is all that is involved.

Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friend has perhaps made rather a wide assumption there. I am not entirely convinced by what he has said. Papers have to be circulated to deal with situations that

may arise. The Order to which my hon. Friend is referring must often be published under varying circumstances which may call for some explanation, and then printing will be involved.
If we may return to the practical consideration which was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley—in the most helpful manner, of course—hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will probably recollect that there was a time recently when it was felt that there was no proper opportunity to discuss financial matters during the winter period, and largely as a result of the interventions of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and some of his colleagues, the Government agreed to give time during the winter period to discuss a White Paper on capital expenditure. The Government have agreed that this should be a routine winter period debate. There seem to be strong arguments for having a similar routine winter period debate on finance, because we are all agreed that there is no satisfactory routine method of debating defence during Government time in the winter period now.

Mr. Brian Harrison: Would the hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit about there not being any debates? Does he think that there are no Estimates debates or anything like that?

Mr. Cronin: There is no routine Government time debate on defence during the winter period.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the debate is the political side. This Bill, which we are to be asked to reconsider every year until 1966, is concerned with discipline and terms of service, and the whole future of the Army and Royal Air Force turns to a large extent on what is produced in the Bill and the way in which it is renewed each year. If all of us had confidence in the Government's handling of defence matters perhaps we should not press this so strongly, but there have been numerous very unfortunate incidents during the last few years, to say the least of it, with regard to defence. We have reached a stage where there is considerable doubt about how B.A.O.R. is to continue to be manned because of the recruitment position, which is very directly affected by the


Bill. Numerous other unfortunate incidents have occurred. Blue Streak has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and he also dilated about the Royal Yacht. Numerous matters cause us considerable concern. Therefore, it is terribly important that a debate of this nature should be conducted very carefully.

Mr. Marsh: Surely the biggest problems with which we have been faced in these debates in recent years have been specific difficulties relating to Army manpower and obtaining sufficient troops?

Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friend has underlined what I have said. The situation is simply that Army recruitment is in a most grievous state. The Secretary of State for War takes it so light-heartedly that he is not even paying attention to what is being said about this very fact, which is the most important problem with which his Department is faced at the moment.
What we have to bear in mind perhaps more than anything else is the welfare of the officers and men in the Army and the Royal Air Force. We are dealing now with a matter which concerns the administration of justice and conditions of service in respect of nearly half a million officers and men. This should be taken very seriously and not fitted into a hurried debate in the summer period. This alone would be a very strong argument for accepting our Amendment.
I hope the Secretary of State will give the matter very careful consideration. I know that he is in general very sympathetic towards anything which will be of value to his Department. I hope that he will approach this with an open mind. I trust that we may shortly have from him an assurance that he will accept the Amendment and thus put the Committee at ease on this very important matter.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has demonstrated how easy it is to get muddled in a discussion, even one of this simplicity. I have listened with the greatest interest to the arguments of crystal clarity which have been put before the Committee, and I am sure that every hon. Member will join me in expressing our gratitude to the

hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who have taken such tremendous care and with the greatest possible patience given us over two hours of their very valuable time on this very controversial issue at the beginning of these proceedings on the Bill. In fact, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had to leave the Chamber when he finished his speech. I trust that he did not harm himself with the length of his discourse.
The practical question at issue is whether it would not be more logical to have in each Session the debates on defence and the Service Estimates before the debate on the Order in Council relating to the Army and Air Force Bill. I think I should point out that it is the Select Committee, and not the Government, which has suggested this step. The Bill, as amended, would achieve it. The Amendment seeks to restore the position I say at once that, Departmentally, my right hon. Friend and I do not really mind very much about this. It is really much more a matter of logic. I appreciate the arguments which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), and I see the argument for having the defence debate, the debate on the Service Estimates and the debate on the Army Act in that order. I recognise that it may make clear what is, and what is not, in order in the Army Act debate if we follow that procedure.
6.0 p.m.
I do not think that it would be right for me to talk now about whether the Estimates Committee should be held upstairs in secret or not. With respect I would suggest that it would not be in order. The Select Committee devoted some time to this matter, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War told the Select Committee that this was acceptable to us. So it is, but as was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his interesting speech, this is very much a question of the convenience of the House. I take that view. If the Committee feels strongly about it, I believe that you, Mr. Arbuthnot, and Mr. Speaker would feel that you would like to be in the hands of the House. Therefore, as it appears from the debate that the majority of hon. Members would like to accept the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dudley, I am prepared


on behalf of the Government to accept it.

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that the speech of the Minister will be very much to the liking of hon. Members on both sides. The only slight regret which some of us feel is that he did not feel called on to make his speech a little earlier.
As the Minister said, my hon. Friends, who are busy men, have spent a considerable part of their time trying to clarify the Minister's mind. In particular, as the Minister said, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spent a great deal of time trying to achieve that end. It might possibly have been a little wiser if the Minister had made the Government's intention clearer a little earlier. Had he done that, the time of the Committee would not have been spent—not that it has not been profitably spent—in the manner in which it has been spent. Anyway, my hon. Friends have the consolation of knowing that they finally clarified the mind of the Minister. His speech was exemplary for its clarity and for the conclusion he reached.
Some of us are disappointed at not hearing from the Chairman of the Select Committee on this important point. The arguments were evenly balanced, and it would have been interesting to have had a clear exposition of the case. I confess that in the Select Committee I felt that there was a great deal in the argument put forward by the Clerk of the House. However, I feel that we cannot cavil at the situation which now exists, and, as the debate has already been considerably prolonged by the Minister, I hope that the Committee will take the Minister's advice and accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): I think that it would be convenient to discuss next the Amendment in page 1, line 18, to leave out "unless Parliament otherwise determines", with the Amendment in page 1, line 21, to leave out "sixty-six" and to insert "sixty-four".

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Arbuthnot, what about my Amendment in page 1, line 20, to leave out
month of August in the"?

The Temporary Chairman: That Amendment will be considered after the first of the Amendments to which I have just referred.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. I am a little puzzled about discussing together the two Amendments which you have suggested, because I cannot see the faintest connection between them. The first Amendment is to omit the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines". I understand that the Amendment is exploratory to discover why that reservation is made. The second Amendment is to reduce the period from five years to three years. The connection between the two Amendments escapes me.

Mr. Marsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. These two Amendments deal with two different points. The second Amendment deals with the length of time which shall lapse each time. It is an issue of policy and it involves also many other questions. The first Amendment is to obtain an explanation from the Government. In the light of that explanation I might be able to decide whether or not to press the second Amendment.
The two Amendments have nothing in common. They deal with two different aspects. One Amendment deals with Parliament's powers in this issue, which has more to do with Parliament than with the Bill, and the other Amendment raises the different problem of the Bill itself. I think that it will be easier for the Committee to deal with the two Amendments separately rather than to try to lump them together and to discuss in one debate two different Amendments with no common factor.

Mr. Mayhew: Further to that point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. I think that it will put us in a difficult position if we discuss the two Amendments together. There may be serious objections to the Amendment in page 1, line 21. I am not sure about the Amendment in page 1, line 18, but when it has been discussed we might be in a better position to decide what to do. At the moment, it would be helpful if the two Amendments were taken separately.

The Temporary Chairman: The decision on selection is the decision of the Chairman, and I have been informed


that the Chairman wishes to have these two Amendments taken together. The alternative is that the second Amendment is not selected. I think that it would probably be wise to try to discuss the two Amendments together and to see how we get on.

Mr. Marsh: One must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Arbuthnot. I should like to move both the Amendments standing in my name and in the name of some of my right hon. Friends.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must move the first Amendment. We can then discuss the second Amendment with it.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. If hon. Members find themselves in the position in which I find myself, of agreeing with one of the Amendments and disagreeing with the other, will that be catered for by the two Questions being put separately?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes. There can be a Division on each Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "unless Parliament otherwise determines".
The Amendment is tabled because subsection (3) says:
No Order in Council shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, be made under the last foregoing subsection so as to continue either of the said Acts beyond the end of the month of August in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six.
There may be a simple explanation for that. If there is, it would be helpful to know it, but one would not expect any Order in Council to be made if Parliament did determine otherwise. One cannot believe that the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines" are there without some specific purpose. If they are there without some specific purpose; if they are merely part of the jargon which is used on these occasions, or are part of the jargon in this kind of legislation, it would probably be as well to remove them anyway. The easier and simpler legislation can be made in its presentation to the public, the better. There seems no purpose in having phrases unless they have some purpose behind them.
On the other hand, if it is suggested that Parliament is not sovereign, and that action can be taken when Parliament determines otherwise, this seems to raise an important constitutional issue which may have been in existence for a long time.
The purpose of this Amendment is merely to find out why the words are here, whether they are essential and if they are not essential, whether we can have them removed. It is also to find out whether it is possible without these words for these Orders to be made if Parliament otherwise determines. One would have thought that the sovereignty of Parliament was complete, particularly on an issue of this kind, and that there was no need for what appear to be these superfluous words.
The other Amendment which we are discussing at the same time raises an entirely different issue altogether. It is the length of time which shall elapse between having discussions of this type, and it is my contention, and that of some of my hon. Friends, that a period of five years is too long, that a debate such as we are having today is useful, and that it is educational by helping hon. Members and the public to know what is going on. It also enables the Government, as has just happened, to stop for a moment and realise their own obvious shortcomings from time to time and take the advice of the Opposition upon issues affected by this type of debate.
We are merely suggesting a reduction in the period of time which should elapse—a reduction of two years. It may be argued whether or not this is essential, and whether there is not perhaps some advantage in having a long period of time to elapse to enable one set of decisions to take effect and to become well-known to people, and for the troops to become used to them before we change the situation again.
One of the problems of the Army and Air Force for a long time has been the failure of successive Governments to be prepared from time to time to review matters as frequently as they should have done. I served in the Army for a comparatively short period—two-and-a-half years—and it is only fair that I should make quite clear that I disliked almost every minute of it. When I came out of the Army, after the war, considerable


changes were taking place. The whole attitude towards troops had changed, and I cannot help feeling that if those changes which took place when I came out had taken place a year or two years before I came out, I might well have decided to stay in the Army.
I do not think that we can look too frequently at matters which affect discipline and other factors, particularly since this question of discipline has caused a great deal of difficulty in regard to the troops and the conditions affecting the number under enlistment. I do not think that it is possible to look at them too frequently. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that one does not want to have decisions changed too frequently. There is always the difficulty of trying to preserve a balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the whole position can be constantly reviewed, and, on the other, the desire to ensure that those who administer the legislation passed by Parliament have sufficient time to get used to the new legislation before it is imposed, and so that they have some time to study its effects.
6.15 p.m.
The difficulty about the issues which we are now debating is that they include a number of issues on which as everyone will agree very strong views are held. My hon. Friends, by later Amendments which we shall be discussing, are dealing with factors which show that there is considerable disagreement and controversy. Indeed, the special Report of the Select Committee itself shows in its presentation that there could be very many arguments about many aspects of the Army and Air Force Bill, but what is frequently overlooked is the fact that those arguments which are advanced at one period are sometimes irrelevant when advanced at an entirely different period. It would be a great misfortune indeed if changes and improvements which this House might well wish to make in the Army and Air Force Act, and which would be to the advantage of men in the Army and Air Force, were unable to be made because of this length of time which was due to elapse.
There is the other issue, which is almost equally important, namely, that hon. Members on this side of the Committee

would regret being tied too closely and too long to the type of legislation brought in by right hon. Members opposite. We should like consideration to be given to both these factors; on the one hand, whether it is possible for the Minister to give consideration to accepting the Amendment to reduce the period of time which is to elapse, not to reduce it right down to a series of annual arguments backwards and forwards, but to reduce it by a period of two years so that there is sufficient continuity, and, at the same time, the possibility of amendment without waiting too long; and, on the other, the earlier factor to which I have referred, in regard to the wording of the Bill itself. If the Minister could give us an explanation of the one which would enable us to make up our minds whether we wished to pursue it or not, and, on the other, the wider issue, let us have the Government's views, it would be helpful.
I hope, also, that the Minister will realise that nobody is making party points on this matter, and that there is no party banner to carry. All that is wanted is to ensure that the best facilities can be made available for the administration of the Army and Air Force Act. Both sides want to discuss these issues at length so that they can come to the best decision, rather than by attempting to score any points from either side. I hope that on these Amendments we shall hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would be a great pity if hon. Members on this side were placed in the position of having to do the debating among themselves in order that the Minister may have something to which to reply.
There may well be, of course, hon. Members opposite who would wish to oppose both Amendments. It may well be that a majority on the Government side would oppose it and that the majority on this side would support it, though I do not think that this necessarily follows. After the exchange of views from both sides, it will be easier for the Committee to reach a conclusion on this and other Amendments which will be to the benefit not only of the Army and Air Force, but of debating in this House.

Mr. Paget: When I first read the Amendments, my impression was that whilst I felt favourably inclined to the


first, I was not in agreement with the second, but I am completely impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has said, and I feel that—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I cannot hear the hon. and learned Gentleman if he turns his back on the Chair.

Mr. Paget: I am so sorry, Mr. Arbuthnot, but I was referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, and I was saying that I felt the arguments which he had made had been so powerful and cogent that, although my first view had not been the same as his, he had done a great deal to convince me.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the first Amendment is one in respect of which—as in the case of the previous Amendment—we are hammering at an open door. I find it very difficult to comprehend the purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out. The Clause says:
No Order in Council shall"—
and I omit the words in question—
be made under the last foregoing subsection so as to continue either of the said Acts beyond the end of the month of August in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six.
That seems a simple and straightforward statement.
The Bill contains a number of other powers, but surely those powers, together with every power given to a Government or anybody else by an Act of Parliament, is subject to Parliament's deciding otherwise. That is what I have always understood the sovereignty of Parliament to mean. A Parliament cannot bind its successor, because that successor would not then be sovereign. Parliament always has the power, by Parliament, to change its decisions.

Mr. Hale: It is constitutionally correct that a Parliament cannot bind a subsequent Parliament, but that is the only real constitutional law that has survived from my text books to the present day. But there are some Statutes which, by common consent, are of such constitutional importance that an exceedingly great deal of reverence is paid to them. Today, probably the most important of these is the Declaration of Rights—the

embodiment of the Bill of Rights—which undoubtedly provides that Britain shall never have a standing Army in any circumstances. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether the Amendments to the Clause do not really invade the principle of Britain's having no standing Army, and raise considerations that might have been important in the Currah in 1914, or in Algiers in 1961.

Mr. Paget: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, but he illustrates the point which I have made about—to coin a word—the unfinality of Acts of Parliament. One could not well have had an Act which one would have expected to command greater reverence than the Bill of Rights, but does he believe that a single one of the rights in that Measure still survives? Can my hon Friend tell me one that we have not demolished?

Mr. Hale: I would have thought that practically the whole Bill of Rights, perhaps the one constitutional Act, has survived. Magna Carta never existed. It made a series of enunciations of constitutional principle, which were never enforced in relation to the common people, to provide a few dubious forms of protection for the nobility. But the Bill of Rights is an institution of 1689. The Convention Parliament was considering the situation which had arisen from the resignation of James II. It settled many things. It settled the rights of Parliament. I am not saying that it was completely new, but the vital principle of the Bill of Rights is that there shall be no taxation without parliamentary grants. That declaration of constitutional principle had never been questioned and had never been invaded until this Government came into office.

Mr. Paget: I immediately accept my hon. Friend's proviso. I agree that Magna Carta never existed, and that it was the invention of seventeenth century lawyers. Before my hon. Friend catches the eye of the Chair he may have an opportunity to study the Bill of Rights, and he will then appreciate that, whether it be by this Government or any of its predecessors, there is no right provided by that Measure that has not been abrogated by Parliament. My hon. Friend mentioned the question of Britain's having no standing Army. Five


years ago we legalised that. He also refered to the question of there being no taxation without representation, but as he has pointed out, that has been sidestepped by this Government.
One might feel that if some provision were especially revered and were regarded as of great importance, an indication might be given of the anticipated intention of Parliament. But this Clause is saying just the opposite. This is not saying that Parliament will not interfere; if it says anything at all it is saying that Parliament might interfere. These are words of reservation. It says:
No Order in Council shall…be made
unless Parliament otherwise determines.
It seems to provide, for instance, that the standing Army shall not be continued for more than five years—something rather less than the normal sanction—by indicating that it is something that Parliament might decide otherwise about. Is there some idea that Parliament might decide, in this instance, other than by Acts of Parliament? That is the only sense in which the words seem to convey anything at all.
I do not know how Parliament decides except by Acts of Parliament—by the decision of this House in its due process, by the decision of another place, and by the consent of the Sovereign. If that is what is intended by these words, why are they there? Parliament can always decide otherwise. Why draw attention to the fact, in this instance, that Parliament might decide otherwise? We know that it might. If, on the other hand, it contemplates some kind of innovation—some different form of Parliamentary consent—the right hon. Gentleman must tell us. I do not want to go on hammering at this matter, because it seems so clear. If the door is already open, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us? Then I will immediately pass to another point.

Mr. Wigg: There is one thing that troubles me. The words used in the Bill are the same as those used in Section 226 (4) of the 1955 Act, but with the difference that whereas, in the Bill, there is a comma before the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines", in the 1955 Act there is no such comma.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget: That is interesting. I do not know whether, from the legislative point of view, there is any essential

significance about it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will assist me, but I believe that, technically, there is no punctuation in any of the legislation which we pass. I understand that punctuation is put in at the Table for convenience, but that it does not form part of an Act of Parliament. I think that I am right about that, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will assist me.

Mr. Profumo: I am in some difficulty here, because we are discussing two Amendments. I do not know what would be for the greatest convenience of the Committee. When the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has finished his speech, and if he wishes me to try to dispose of this part of the Amendment, I will gladly do so. I am in the hands of the Committee. Perhaps hon. Members would prefer to express wider views and then I can speak about other parts of the Amendment, but I will do whatever the Committee wishes.

Mr. Mayhew: I think that there may be great advantage in taking these two things separately. What I have heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) convinces me more than ever that the connection between the two Amendments is extremely tenuous. All the arguments relating to the first Amendment seem totally irrelevant to the arguments in relation to the second Amendment. For the purposes of orderly debate there might be a great deal to be said if the Minister replied to them in turn.

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that the debate has shown that it would be more convenient to take the two Amendments separately.

Mr. Paget: I think that that would be for the greater convenience, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Profumo: The difficulty is, Sir Gordon, that the two Amendments have been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I thought that he had moved the two Amendments.

The Chairman: Only one Amendment may be moved at a time.

Mr. Paget: I moved only one. I should be grateful, Sir Gordon, if we


could continue to discuss the first and then proceed to the second. I have made my speech on the first Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: Would the Minister be good enough to dismiss my fear by saying that the commas in the Bill have no significance? In reading this I had thought that what is in the Bill is the same as is in the Act. If that is so, I am quite satisfied.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps it would be convenient if I spoke to the first Amendment and gave the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) the assurance which he seeks. I am advised that this is normal terminology and intended to draw attention to the fact that the Act will expire at the end of 1966 in the absence of further legislation. As such it is useful, perhaps, to the layman, if not to what one might call "the House of Commas"—having regard to some references which have been made in the debate. The words were used in the 1955 Act and, so far as I can see, we accrue no advantage by removing them. Therefore, the Government and I prefer to stick to the customary usage and wish to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman have confirmed my worst feelings. I can appreciate the need in an Act of Parliament for words which serve a particular purpose. But to suggest that words might appear in a Bill because they have been in a previous Act, and because one cannot think of any real reason for getting rid of them, seems to me a first-rate reason for doing precisely the opposite, and getting rid of them. It is one of our problems that legislation becomes almost unintelligible to the man-in-the-street.
If the words, "unless Parliament other-ment determines" are intended to show that Parliament is not sovereign, and that in some circumstances this could be done despite a decision of Parliament, they serve a particular purpose. But if we are proposing to put in those words knowing full well that whether they appear in the legislation or not this cannot be done unless Parliament otherwise determines, all we are doing is cluttering up the Bill with unnecessary verbiage which serves no particular purpose.
I feel strongly that if it is possible to cut out words from legislation because they serve no useful purpose, they should be cut out. If they serve a useful purpose, perhaps one of Her Majesty's Ministers can tell us what is the purpose. But I consider it an extraordinary argument if one of Her Majesty's Ministers, after a discussion on the subject, says that these words have to remain—although they have no effect on the Bill at all—and that they were there previously, and it is thought that it makes it easier for the man-in-the-street to see what is going on.
I cannot believe that if the man-in-the-street reads this subsection:
No Order in Council shall be made under the last foregoing subsection so as to continue either of the said Acts beyond the end of the month of August in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six
he will be any better served by having the subsection as it reads at present with the inclusion of the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines."
I should have thought it extremely unfortunate to suggest, as this would appear to suggest, that in some circumstances Parliament is not sovereign and that action can take place on a Bill of this nature without a decision of Parliament. I should have thought that completely the reverse was true and that at every opportunity we should endeavour to make quite clear that things which appear in Acts of Parliament are automatically subject only to the decision of Parliament. To have four words in a Bill which appear to cast doubt on that would, in my opinion, do a disservice to this sort of legislation. It is something which Governments and Government Departments are far too addicted to doing.
The Government's idea to include words in a Measure, not because they serve a purpose but because they are rather grandiose and impressive, or—this is even less important—because they have appeared before, is something that we can well do without. We have been assured by the Minister that this involves no issue of principle at all; that it dies not affect the legislation if we take out the words; that all that would happen would be that the Bill would become shorter; that there would be less to read and things would not be put into


people's minds which we should not wish to be put. If the Minister has a real reason for including these words, if they contribute something important to the Bill, hon. Members on this side of the Committee would not wish to be obstructive, or continue arguing about it. If the best that the right hon. Gentle man can say is that they were there be fore, and that he thinks that they sound rather good—

Mr. Profumo: Mr. Profumo indicated dissent.

Mr. Marsh: Well, if they do not—

Mr. Profumo: I did not use as one of my arguments that the words were there because I thought that they sounded good. If the hon. Gentleman looks at what I said, he will see that I believe that there is a use for them. This was in the legislation before, and I am not prepared to recommend any change unless I can see that such a change would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Marsh: I hope that I may be forgiven if I appear particularly obtuse on this point. I appreciate that the words were there before, but that is no reason for having them there now. I do not consider that to be a particularly valid argument.
We are interested in whether the words serve any useful purpose. As I understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the useful purpose that he says they serve at present is to make the Bill more intelligible to members of the public. I do not want to misrepresent his views, but I think that that is his argument. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that or deny it, because I do not want to base an argument upon what I think he said if, in fact, he did not say it.
It is an extraordinary situation, when an hon. Member asks the Minister why he has put certain words into legislation, for the Minister to put forward one argument and say that there is another. The hon. Member obviously asks what is the other reason, or whether he is correctly interpreting what the Minister has said. I have asked for the other reason, yet I am faced with complete silence. The Minister will not reply and I must assume that his only argument is that the inclusion of these words will make the Bill more intelligible for the general public.

Mr. Profumo: I said that some time ago.

Mr. Marsh: If the right hon. Gentleman said that some time ago, that makes the matter a lot clearer. I cannot believe that to add the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines" in a Bill that is meant for a literate nation, in which everyone is aware that Parliament is sovereign, makes the Bill more intelligible. The public are bound to think that these words have another meaning. In these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position so that the words may be eliminated, unless they serve a specific purpose.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) for raising this matter, because it is time we got rid of unnecessary words in Acts of Parliament. People have too much to read nowadays without having to digest a lot of unnecessary verbiage, and there is no doubt, so far as this subsection is concerned, that the omission of these words will make no difference to the purpose of the Bill. Since that is true, the obvious next question is: why keep the words in the Bill?
As I understand the Minister's reply, his reason for keeping the words is that they draw attention to the fact that the Bill cannot be continued beyond 1966, unless Parliament decides otherwise. In other words, Parliament has the right to decide to continue it. That is what I understood the Minister to say, but I wonder whether the barrackroom lawyer, trying to find his way around the Air Force Act, will understand what the right hon. Gentleman says that he will understand.
Will anyone be greatly impressed by the inclusion of words? I cannot think so, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich pointed out, everyone knows that an Act can be changed by another Act. It is as simple as that; and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, there is no finality about legislation. That is crystal clear to everyone. No one expects that a particular piece of legislation will last for ever. Therefore, if we assume that people realise that, it is rather pointless to keep these words in the Clause.
I am in favour of cutting out words that have no particular meaning because, contrary to what the Minister has said, by including words, we create the idea in the mind of the reader of the Bill that the words have a meaning. The reader then begins to search through the Bill to try to discover just what that meaning is and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich pointed out, he reads into it the meaning that Parliament can do something other than by the normal means.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I support that argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I tabled this Amendment simply because I assumed that the words in question had a meaning. It did not occur to me that it was necessary to state in legislation that an Act could be superseded by another Act.

Mr. Willis: That conclusion is reached by anyone reading the Bill. One is bound to ask what it means. If it means nothing, the reader of the Bill will have a fruitless task in trying to find out whether it has a meaning. He might puzzle over it for a long time.
As an hon. Member who has spent many hours combing through Bills in order to draw up Amendments, I know that this is what happens in the case of words that have no meaning. Nevertheless, when I come across a phrase which does not appear to have a meaning, I am bound to ask why it is there, and many other questions. The inclusion of meaningless words not only makes the task of reading a Bill more difficult, but makes the reader more puzzled at the end of his search than he was when he started.
I suggest that, in the interests of intelligibility, these words should be deleted. Their removal would make no difference to the Measure, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich pointed out, because the words were included in a previous Act that is no reason for including them in this Bill. Whenever we examine a Bill we should eliminate all extraneous material. We should improve it, because that is our job. The omission of these words would improve this Bill and make it more easily understood.

Mr. M. Foot: It is obvious that many hon. Members are extremely puzzled about the whole situation. The Minister was cautious in the way he dealt with the previous Amendment, but he has been courteous to the Committee. He has listened to a long debate, but I must inform him, nevertheless, that we are still puzzled about this and it is not satisfactory for him merely to refer to the previous Act. I have looked at the wording of that Act and, although it may be that this is purely a matter of the incorporation in this Bill of words that were in that Act, it is conceivable that there has been a mistake in the transference of the words. The form of this Clause is phrased differently from that of the previous Act, especially in the use of negatives.
I am not a lawyer, but, taking a commonsense view of the matter, subsection (3) would appear to have the intention of being a protection against an abuse of the Act. It is interesting to consider the reading of the sentence with the words omitted. It would read:
No Order in Council shall be made under the last foregoing subsection so as to continue either of the said Acts beyond the end of the month of August in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
In that form, the sentence would appear to be a Clause protecting the Act from being abused. Surely, if the Government want to protect the Bill from abuse, they should make that protection as clear as possible, without introducing words which might be read to undermine, to some degree, the protection provided by the subsection.
Therefore, I cannot understand why the words are included. I do not think that even the Minister knows why. He probably thought that he had one good reason why—and he tried to give that reason—but, in fact, he does not fully understand why the words are included.
If there is a proper reason why they should be included, hon. Members are entitled to a full explanation. Perhaps the answer is that during the debate that took place on the 1955 Act, when there were a great number of Amendments to be discussed and many changes to be made, the words slipped through due to the lack of vigilance on the part of hon. Members. Perhaps that is the reason for the inclusion of the words. In any


case, it is good to see the Committee repairing that deficiency, and examining the Bill more carefully than on that occasion.
But, whatever the cause, it appears that we are now leaving in a Clause which is supposed to protect, some words which seem to injure that protection. It is, therefore, necessary that we should be given a full explanation of the matter, because it is obvious that when the Minister replied he was hazy about the matter, just as hon. Members still are. I hope that when he next intervenes he will enlighten the Committee.

Mr. Wigg: I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for the kind way in which he dealt with the previous Amendment, and to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) that I did not think it remiss that he did not speak. He and I are old friends and opponents, but we share the common end of trying to serve the Army as we think best, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman carries no hard feelings.
I think that the Government are in some difficulty over this matter because of its history. When we were discussing the procedures to be adopted we were all conscious that we were up against a difficult situation. We on these benches were mindful of our responsibilities not only to the House, but to our own party. We brought into consultation Earl Attlee, Lord Morrison and others, who have a vast experience of constitutional procedure. We were conscious that we were recommending to the House that this great right of debating the Army Annual Act should be renounced. It needs to be remembered, as will be seen if hon. Members will read the debate which took place in the early part of 1954, that what we had in mind was that the Government should bind themselves by putting down an Amendment to the Standing Orders.
We drew up a timetable by which we would allot one day to the Second Reading. The second recommendation was:
Providing that immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time it shall stand committed to a Select Committee, and that when the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee it should stand recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.

We then allowed one day for consideration in Committee on two days if the Government decided not to incorporate in the Bill the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee, and we allotted one day for Report and one day for Third Reading. The fifth recommendation was that the Standing Order should contain other provisions, if necessary, to prevent delay in the passage of the Bill, on Lords' Amendments.
We on our side were poachers turned gamekeepers. I make no bones about that. I was trying to stop hon. Members opposite from doing what we had done. During the period of the Labour Government in 1945–51, and particularly in 1951, when we had such a small majority, I could never understand why the then Opposition, which were always on their toes and were keeping us up night after night, did not try to bring the Army Annual Bill up to date. I held the view, which was shared by my hon. Friends, that it was very bad for the Army that this Measure should be seventy years out of date. After two years of hard labour we brought it up to date, and what we wanted to do then was to keep it up to date.
This matter was discussed on a non-party basis. The Select Committee was born of bitter party controversy, and yet, as soon as we got behind closed doors, what divisions there were ran right across party lines. We were striving to find a solution which would protect the rights of the House, keep the Bill up to date and be ever-mindful of the needs of the Army. It is my view that these words to which my hon. Friend takes exception and which appear in the 1955 Act were put in to underline the rights of Parliament. They may be otiose, but they are in a very good cause.
If the Government feel that they must retain these words, I would plead with my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment because it is my view that they were put in originally because hon. Members on both sides were trying to reach an amicable and well-founded settlement.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: I should like to say a word or two, as I was on the Select Committee which considered this matter. I do not feel very strongly about this point


either way. If I wanted to be really frank, I would say that I do not think it matters two hoots whether these words are left in or are deleted.
I have a feeling that this is one of those cases where the Select Committee passed over a Clause or a paragraph or a line without spotting this point, so that we did not actually discuss it. I would guarantee that if we had a debate every day of the week for four months on this Bill we would still continue to find things which require altering. My view is that if the Minister decides to take out these words it will not make much difference. If he leaves them in, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has just said, there must have been a good reason for putting them in. Without putting a wet towel round my head and finding out about it, I personally do not feel very strongly.

Mr. Profumo: I am as anxious as any hon. Member to make progress. It seems to me that if we are to do our work properly we must realise that it is the duty of this Committee, embracing the collective wisdom of all hon. Members, to make progress.
I intervened earlier because I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to explain why I thought the words were included. They are included because they were there before. This was customary usage. I was advised that this was normal terminology and was probably intended for the help of the general public.
I have no desire to hold up the proceedings by adhering to these words. I am perfectly willing to give way. In view of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) has said—after all, he was on the Select Committee and I was not—it would seem that the Select Committee considered this point and that the Committee wanted these words. However, if there is any danger of these words being regarded as useless verbiage I would be prepared at once to drop them. However, I do not agree that we ought to search through all the Acts and see what can be cut out.
If it is thought that these words are unnecessary I am prepared to give way and accept this Amendment in the interests of trying to make progress, and I

hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will use their own ingenuity with a view to making some progress with the Bill. With that explanation, may I repeat that I am willing to accept the Amendment if the hon. Member wishes to press it.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If this debate has demonstrated nothing else, it has certainly demonstrated that these words do not make for clarity. I do not think any of us suspected, until the right hon. Gentleman said so, that this was an oblique reference to the possibility of another Army Act five years hence. When we drafted the Amendment this possibility did not occur to any of us, so that it can hardly be said that these words make for clarity. Indeed, if one had wanted that, one could have said so by adding the words, "but shall then be continued by Act of Parliament."
I am grateful for the receptivity of the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 20, leave out:
month of August in the".—[Mr. Wigg.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out "sixty-six" and to insert "sixty-four",
We began to take this Amendment in conjunction with the previous one, but it is probably of assistance to clarity and to our order that we should discuss them separately. I have already made some comments about this Amendment. It is a simple issue. I consider that the period of five years before each renewal is too long.
It may well be necessary to have a long period so that those administering the Act and those serving under it can get used to its provisions and learn to understand them. It is not our intention that we should have a debate on it every so often, but I suggest that three years would be a more reasonable time. The discussion today has made it clear that this is an interesting operation, and that it is worth while giving consideration to matters of this kind from time to time.
I underline my previous point, because it is most important, that if we are to have an Army and Air Force which


attract young men in the right numbers, then at any time the conditions in those Services must be in line with modern thought. Immediately after the war, from about 1947 to 1950, there was a complete change in the attitude of people towards the treatment of soldiers and airmen. The fact that Parliament was able to change this attitude and bring it into line with modern thought did a great deal to ensure more satisfaction in the Services than we would otherwise have had.
One can argue about whether a three-year period is better than a five-year period, but, on balance, I believe that five years is too long. It is the length of a Parliament. Things move faster than that. I hope that the Secretary of State will be as receptive to this Amendment as he was to the first one. One of the recent developments in this House is, as some of his hon. Friends would agree, government by proxy. If we could extend that, to the right degree of effectiveness, to defence and colonial affairs, it would be of benefit to the House and to the nation.
I hope that we can all approach this new Amendment once more without party divisions. The Secretary of State has commendably shown lack of party intention so far—perhaps, as has been remarked, "We are all Socialists now." I think that if he listens to this case on its merits, he will agree that the five-year period is too long to wait before we review the conditions which affect so many people.

Mr. Paget: When I was on the Select Committee, and until I began to think about this, my impression was that the five-year period on which we decided five years ago was probably about right. Nonetheless, and in the light of some of the things my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has said, that now requires a good deal of consideration. What one was saying then was that one must weigh the convenience of Parliament against the convenience of the Army. These two things are in conflict. We said then that, for the convenience of the Army, it must take this Act and like it for five years, and that it would only be at the end of that period that we would reconsider the situation to see whether the Army needed any further legislation.
Is that quite fair on the Army? The five-year period depended on certain predications which have not been realised. We all tended to assume then that there would be a fairly constant Government policy. I do not think that, at that time, any of us—although some of us had views about it—took very seriously the idea that National Service would go.
Five years ago, when we were working on this, I certainly—and this is probably true of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer)—held the view that National Service, although none of us liked it very much, was here to stay. But within this period of five years the structure of the Army has been changed unexpectedly. It has been changed from a compulsory Army to a volunteer Army.
Again, there have been startling changes in the conception of the Army's role. At that time we were considering an obligation to N.A.T.O. of four divisions in Germany. We were thinking in terms of conventional forces. Then came what has come to be known as the "Sandys' Policy"—the assumption that a trip wire would do.

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. and learned Member is going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: With respect, Sir Gordon, can I do so? All I am saying is that if we are to assume that we do not need to look at the law of the Army for five years, then we are doing it upon the assumption that for the next five years the circumstance will be much the same. I am pointing out that that was the assumption five years ago, but that the changes since then in the Army structure have been of such a startling and unexpected nature that we should be rash to assume that we have reached a state of stability for another five years.
Various Members opposite, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), are pressing hard for the restoration of conscription. That may be done within the next five years. I am simply advancing the argument that when we thought in terms of a five-year "stay-put" with the Army taking it and liking it, and to that extent preferring Parliamentary convenience to the needs of the Army, we were making an assumption that events have not warranted. Nothing proves this better than this Bill.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will say that the Army badly needs this Bill and the changes it makes. He will not say that in 1953 we on the Select Committee did not do our job properly. We did. I am very proud of our achievements. I think that we produced an extraordinarily good Bill, but we could not anticipate everything that was to happen. In spite of everything, we have the very extensive changes involved by the proposals now brought before us by the Government.
If the Government say, "We think that these changes are urgently wanted; they are necessary for the good of the Army and for the discipline of the Army", why were they not necessary last year or the year before?
That is what one is up against. We have provided, and are being asked to provide that, within our democracy, within our small system, the Army shall wait for five years for its latest needs to be supplied. We are telling the Army that it must wait for a period of five years for its legislative needs to be met. This Bill cannot be amended. It cannot be altered by Order in Council. It can only continue in the form we provide.
Without any derogation from what I said before, Parliament remains sovereign, and at any time within those five years an amending Act may be introduced, but one knows the pressures there are on legislative time. One knows the queue for Bills. One anticipates the position of a Secetary of State for War who says, "I want some Amendments" when there are a lot of other people also wanting Parliamentary time. Lots of other Ministers want it for doubtless important and valid things, and the Minister will be told, "You will get your general Amendments and your Select Committee and do it in a couple of years, so you can wait."
That is the attitude which, unless something very vital indeed occurred, would be adopted. We should therefore find that in, perhaps, not the most vital things but none the less in things of real and considerable importance we should be providing that Parliament's convenience should be preferred to the needs of the Army.
Let us look for a moment at this Bill and see for how much we are asking

here. Let us look at the extent of the alterations. Clause 2 deals with terms of enlistment and contains very substantial provisions. Can the Minister tell us whether it would not have been for the convenience of the Army if those provisions had been made two years ago, or one year ago? If it would not have been for the Army's convenience then, why is it now?
7.15 p.m.
These are very radical and substantial changes. We are providing here for various changes—the two-year period, change of conditions of service in the Regular forces, and so on. There are the conditions for the conversion of short term into long term for which, apparently, there was not the power to provide before. What, meanwhile, has been happening to the people who needed to do that?
Clause 5 deals with—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member cannot go through all the Clauses of the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Sir Gordon, does not this make my point more effective than anything else does? My point is that the Army should not be asked to wait for five years—that three years is enough and that, in fact, because we have asked it to wait for five years a backlog has built up. This Bill is that backlog. If we made the period three years, a great many, if not all of its provisions—

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is entitled to make that point, but he cannot go through the details of all the Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Paget: No, Sir Gordon, that is just what I am asking the Minister to do. I am asking him to consider this very serious point and to tell us which of these Clauses, had it been a three-year period, the Army would have liked to have had two years ago. Some of them are only needed now, and I should have thought that only by going through these Clauses would he be able to tell us which of them he would have liked two year ago—had it been a three-year period. Only then could he tell us how much the Army has had to put up with for two years just because it could


not come back to the House under a period of five years.
Whilst I agree with you, Sir Gordon, that it would be unreasonable for me to go through each Clause, I feel that it is reasonable for me to indicate enough to ask the Minister, whose responsibility it is, to go through these Clauses and to explain whether the five-year period has really been satisfactory and, if not, how much he has had to put up with because he could not have things altered two years ago. That is my point.

The Chairman: I do not think that the Minister should, at this stage, go though each Clause and deal with it in detail at all. He can deal with the general position.

Mr. Paget: I am afraid that I am not making myself clear. That is not what I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to do. I am only asking him to go through this on the time basis, so that we can fairly assess whether five years, as asked for this time, is too long a period. I ask only to what extent the Army has been inconvenienced by having to wait for that length of time for the Amendments that it is now seeking.
That is all I ask. I do not think that one can really ask that very effectively or get a very real reply unless one does at least ask the Minister to go through the Amendments and answer the questions, "By which of these have you been inconvenienced as a result of having to wait? To what extent have you been inconvenienced by the fact that instead of being able, under the old practice to get your Amendments annually, you have had to wait for five years? How much better off would you have been had you only had to wait for three years?" It is that sort of question which I am putting, and if the Minister is clear and tells us for which he has had to wait and which have not mattered I shall be most happy to leave him to tell us.

Sir O. Prior-Palmer: From the point of view of the Army, I very strongly resist this Amendment. If there is one thing that upsets both officers and men, it is being messed about—there is another word for it in the Army. If we had a three-year period, as suggested, exactly the same arguments might be

produced for making it annual as have been adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). One is upsetting people. It is upsetting to have to rewrite and relearn all the new regulations that may be introduced.
At one stage the hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no way of doing anything about any glaring example of amendment which needed to be done. Then he retraced his steps and said that there could be an amending Bill. Of course, that is so. There was an amending Bill in 1947, the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Bill. That was a case where conditions had changed and an amending Bill was necessary.
I implore the Minister to resist the Amendment. I believe that the previous Select Committee was very wise in its decision. As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, there were some very wise men on that Select Committee, such as Lord Morrison. In their wisdom, they said that five years was about the right time. I am convinced that five years is right.

Mr. Mayhew: A frank statement that one has changed one's mind is always a sign of strength rather than weakness of character. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says that his mind has changed somewhat from what it was when these matters were considered by the last Select Committee and by the previous Select Committee, I am sure that none of us will feel anything but respect for him. However, I am bound to say that I think that his earlier thoughts were better than his recent thoughts.
I hate to say this, because so far today every Amendment has been accepted by the Government. It is anomalous and unhelpful if a sense of resistance should come from the Opposition Front Bench to the reasoned speeches and Amendments of my hon. Friends, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press the Amendment too hard. He says that the present situation is not for the convenience of the Army. I think that we should give a change time to try itself out and that we should wait to see the results which flow from the change. We do not always want to be pulling up by the roots the latest developments which we have brought


about. We want to get the new régime settled in and to give it time to settle down.
I doubt whether my hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that we are overriding the convenience of the Army for our own convenience. I do not think that that is so. I agree that there have been great changes in the last five years. I agree that the whole strategic situation has changed. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it has changed in such a way that the decision which my hon. and learned Friend, the Select Committee and Parliament took five years ago should be altered. I doubt whether that would be wise. I think that, on the whole, it has worked well. I hope that the Minister will treat the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend seriously, namely, which parts of the Bill would he have liked to change two years ago? I should like to hear the Minister's reply to that question.
Take the extraordinary anomaly in Clause 2, to the effect that if a person enlists at the age of 17½ the date of enlistment for pension purposes is his age, 17½. If a person enlists below the minimum age, his age for pension purposes is 18. This is a most extraordinary anomaly. It is difficult to understand how the Act rectifies it.
I was enchanted by the Minister's defence of his attitude on the previous Amendment.

The Chairman: We are on Clause 1. We cannot go into details about Clause 2.

Mr. Mayhew: I was asking the Minister which parts of the Bill might have come better two years ago had the present procedure been in force.
On the whole, I am not persuaded by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. He said how very substantial were the changes in the Bill. We should have a certain sense of proportion about this. Admittedly, they are important changes. I think that the attention that we are giving to each one of them is an indication of the importance that we on this side of the Committee at least give to these items in the Bill. However, I think that we need to exercise a certain amount of proportion about what my hon. and learned Friend said, namely,

that the changes in the Bill are very substantial and that the backlog had become very substantial.
I do not think that the five-year period has been a failure. I should like to hear the Minister's reply to the Amendment, but in general I feel less sympathetic towards it than I do towards many others that we have tabled. The Minister has been very helpful so far, and I add my congratulations to him to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). His speeches have been brisk and to the point. He has said what we all hoped he would say, namely, that he accepted the Amendment. Only one of his interventions was a little less fortunate, and that was in reply to the second Amendment.
I hope that the Minister will let us know his answer to my hon. Friend's question and that we shall make up our minds accordingly. The existing arrangements are my hon. and learned Friend's arrangements. They are things which he supported and worked for. I think that we would be wise to let them rest as they are.

Mr. Profumo: I am impressed by what the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has said. The effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the life of the Army Act from five to three years. In spite of the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, I do not consider that there is adequate reason for accepting the Amendment. The Select Committee of 1952–54 recommended five years, mainly, I think, because it represented the lifetime of a Parliament. In spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, the Bill does not make any very substantial changes. It makes only minor improvements to the existing Acts. This shows that they can run their full length of five years satisfactorily.
I will not delay the Committee by going through the rest of the Bill. I have done what I have been asked to do by hon. Members opposite. The most substantial change that I have found is that concerning fines. It is a fairly good example. I have been asked whether I should have liked to do anything of this kind two years ago. I could not have cared less two years ago, because I was at the Foreign Office. I think that my predecessor was perfectly happy that


the period should run its full length. As thought matured in the Army, it was decided that it was time to introduce some sort of selection of fines. However, I can find nothing in the Bill which any Minister in my position would have been panting to get before the Bill came before Parliament at its normal five-year period.
This matter has been given a great deal of thought by the Select Committee and by hon. Members. We would be wrong to cast this proposal aside. Both Houses of Parliament can debate the Army Act each year by virtue of the procedure whereby Orders in Council extend the Act for one more year at a time when those Orders in Council require an affirmative Resolution.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has had a chance to make two speeches on this matter, because he moved the Amendment in conjunction with another one. On both occasions he made the point that it would be wise for us to have another opportunity of speaking about the Army. No one on this side of the Committee would wish to resist that, but we have the opportunity and it would be wrong for us to have this procedure in order to duplicate an opportunity which we already have. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) said, if an Amendment to the Army Act is thought essential by the Secretary of State for War and the Government, it can be done by a separate Measure.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there is always a great struggle for parliamentary time and that probably the Secretary of State for War would not manage to lord it over his Cabinet colleagues. This has proved to be wrong. The Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Act, 1957, was passed, and rightly so.
7.30 p.m.
Perhaps the main reason for resisting the Amendment is that we must not mess the Army about. While I occupy the position of Secretary of State for War, I shall continue to do everything I can to see that the Army is not messed about too much. The soldiers must be allowed some form of insulation against too much parliamentary pressure for changing the orders and regulations under which they live. It is my job to try to defend the

Army and see that it gets a chance of continuity.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East knows a great deal about the B.B.C. He will recall that at one time, the B.B.C., I think rightly, met with trouble because it was not allowed to plan ahead and did not have enough continuity. In the end, we managed to try to help the Corporation. The same thing applies to the Army. It must feel that it has continuity and can plan ahead and that the laws and regulations made by Parliament are such that the Army can settle down to administer, understand and live under them. That is, perhaps, the most important point.
I hope that the Committee will regard seriously the importance of these Amendments to the Acts and regulations which Parliament has made, which must have a chance to settle down and work properly. I should not be likely to be here today suggesting an amendment to the punishment by fine unless we had had experience of five years in which all Army commanders and experts felt that it had been given a good trial and that something was missing. I would hesitate to think that we do not want to change it for another five years when we already have the opportunity, if we so wish, in serious circumstances to amend the Act as I have suggested. Therefore, I do not feel able to accept the Amendment and I hope that the Committee will endorse my argument.

Mr. Paget: I do not feel very convinced by what the Secretary of State has said. Least of all do I feel convinced by what he has said about "mucking the Army about". That is an odd point of view. Traditionally, until five years ago the Army Bill came before Parliament every year. I do not think that the Army was unduly mucked about by that procedure. It was the annual opportunity of making the Amendments which were wanted. The picture that either we today in the Bill or Parliament during the years in which the Annual Bill went on were imposing on the Army things which it did not want is great nonsense. The Amendments that were produced by the Government were the Amendments that the Army wanted.
This five-yearly opportunity is not an opportunity to muck the Army about.


It is the Army's opportunity to come to Parliament to ask for what it wants. Five years is probably too long an interval during which the Army cannot come to Parliament to ask for what it wants, except in exceptional circumstances such as a complete change-over such as the enlistment system in 1957, when the War Office could get sufficient priority to have a special Bill. That, however, was rare.
The case for the Army to be given this additional access to Parliament is still a strong argument. If it is being rejected because the Government think that this is an opportunity to muck the Army about, they should think again, because they are rejecting the Amendment under a complete delusion and for a reason which is completely at variance with the facts.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I fail to see why the Secretary of State for War is so adamant about the five-year period. What is the magic of five years? Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking in terms of a five-year plan as a result of his study of the economic system of the Soviet Union? Why should he be rigid about the period of five years? One would think that the Army could not function unless there were a five-year plan by which, apparently, the Army is to be isolated from Parliament and there is to be the minimum interference by the House of Commons. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not advancing the theory in these days that Parliament should be subservient to the Army. I hope that he has not been reading too many of the pronunciamentos of the generals in Algeria who thought they were the Government of France.
Another possible reason why the figure five has assumed such extraordinary significance is because of the five fingers, just as the figure ten became important because there were ten fingers. Why the right hon. Gentleman brings forward the magic figure of five as against a figure of three, I cannot understand. Parliament is elected for five years, and that is one reason, but that should not apply to the organisation of the Army, especially, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has pointed out, in view of the fluid situation that will be caused by the interregnum between conscription and whatever Army system is likely to come when

the recruiting system ceases to function. Therefore, with the recruiting figures going as they are, it is essential that we should have far more control and far more contact with the military organisation that we are likely to have if the period continues to be five years.
The Secretary of State should not be so obstinate and stubborn in his attitude. When we are thinking in terms of selective drafts and bringing into the Army a curious number of people who are neither the old-fashioned conscripts nor the old-fashioned type of Regular, there is an unanswerable argument that the period when Parliament should reconsider the matter should be three and not five years.
Another factor that comes to mind is that the whole position of the Armed Forces has to be perpetually reviewed by public opinion and by Parliament in the light of the tremendous development in modern methods of warfare. Many of the Sections in the Army Act were based on the idea of Army discipline going back for centuries. For example, many of them have been determined by the conditions prevailing in the 1914–18 war. I know that many of the regulations about military discipline, organisation and punishments such as those relating to detention barracks are based, not on modern ideas of disciplinary punishments, but upon disciplinary ideas which prevailed 50, 100 or even 200 years ago.
Parliament must from time to time carefully reconsider the whole structure of the Army. There was too much sign of impatience by the Minister. He said that we must not mess the Army about. Surely, the Army should be the instrument of the House of Commons and of public opinion expressing itself through the House of Commons. The idea that we must not "muck about" the War Office and "mess up" the traditional system which has become associated with the word "brass-hat" is quite contrary to modern ideas of the development of modern war. I am quite sure that if we had here military thinkers, like Captain Liddell Hart, who are thinking in terms of modern armies and modern tactical and strategic ideas, they would agree that the three-year period is far more likely to be reasonable in the light of modern conditions.
Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be carried by the Committee.

Mr. Wigg: I must raise my voice in favour of retaining five years. When we were discussing this in 1953 there was considerable pressure from hon. Members on both sides to lengthen the period. It was thought that we should have seven years rather than five. I said then:
I plead guilty to the five years. I said for five years because I thought that we were thinking in terms of the life of a Parliament. But I am not wedded to it. Other people have much greater experience than myself, and they might think five years too short a time. The reason I thought of it was that we are going to keep the Army Act up to date. It is very important that it should be kept up to date. Therefore, if it is considered that five years is too short a time, I do not press my views.
The whole arguments at that time were directed to a longer period.
A valued and distinguished former colleague, Mr. Bing, drew attention to an interesting parallel. He said:
An interesting parallel with the American Army Act is that the United States always pass one in the life of Congress, so that they follow the English tradition, so to speak.
I would have thought that what we needed to look at is whether the experience of the last five years has invalidated the conclusion which the Select Committee then accepted. A quite remarkable thing about the Act, when we examine it with care, is how well it has worked. There are only a handful of Amendments which it is necessary to raise.
I would say that there are only four of them which raise questions of policy. Experience of the army has shown, I think—and I do not say this because I advocated a five-year period—that a five-year period is just about right. I think that the validity of associating it with the life of Parliament is that once in the normal length of Parliament the Army Act will be looked at by the body of Members as a whole.
7.45 p.m.
If the Secretary of State becomes impatient I hope that he is mindful of the prime duty of any Secretary of State for War—that, whilst he is responsible to the House of Commons for the Army, he is responsible to the Army for the House of Commons. That is a view which I have always held and is another argument which I ask my hon. Friends who are concerned about this matter to bear in mind.
We are not only passing a piece of legislation. We are laying down a code

of discipline, and a code of discipline is a way of life and it must have an opportunity to take root. We have had a valuable discussion and I think that hon. Members on this side of the Committee would be wise to accept the experience of the last five years and at least for the next period keep it at five years.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Sidney Silverman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "1955", to insert:
and the words 'death or any other' in sections twenty-four and twenty-five and the words 'or murder' in section seventy of the Army Act, 1955 and the corresponding words in the Air Force Act, 1955".
This Amendment sounds very abstruse and complicated, but its intended effect is to align the penalties for the respective offences under these Acts with those in the civilian penal code. I would hope that, whatever they may think about the validity of other Amendments which have been or may yet be moved, the Government might look sympathetically upon this one, because there is not any good reason why a young soldier should suffer greater penalties for offences in the Army than he would have to were he subject only to civilian law. Perhaps I had better explain in what way the Amendment I have moved is intended to bring about that effect.

Mr. Paget: That was not the impression that I got of the effect of this Amendment. The effect of the Amendment seemed to me to be the traditional one which I think has been moved in debates on every Army Act since 1919—that is the straight abolition of the death penalty. It is to that that I put my name. There are two subsequent new Clauses which I think will be considered later, and should this Amendment fall those new Clauses would have the effect of bringing the Army law into line with the Homicide Act. I understand that this Amendment has nothing to do with the Homicide Act.

Mr. Silverman: I think that I had better proceed as I was intending to proceed before my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) so helpfully intervened. I had better look at what actually we


would be doing if this Amendment were accepted, or, in default of its being accepted, if it were carried by the Committee on a Division, as I would hope it would be.
Clause 1 (5) provides that
Subsections (2) to (5) of section two hundred and twenty-six of the Army Act, 1955, and the corresponding provisions of the Air Force Act, 1955, shall cease to have effect at the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
Hon. Members might now look at Section 226 of the Army Act, 1955. I am sorry to keep the Committee waiting while I look it up, but if I do not quote the right words my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton will intervene again. I am afraid that I cannot find Section 226 (2) and (5). Perhaps I have a copy of the wrong Act.

Mr. Paget: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to assist him. Clause 1 (5) repeals certain parts of the Army Act including part of Section 226 with which we are not now concerned. The Amendment adds to that which is repealed words from Sections 24, 25 and 70 of the Army Act, those being the Sections which award the death penalty. The effect of the Amendment, therefore, is to add to the words repealed the provisions of the Army Act that deal with the death penalty.

Mr. Silverman: Then we must look at Sections 24 and 25 of the Army Act, 1955. These are the Sections which provide certain penalties for certain offences and Section 24 (1) reads at its conclusion:
shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer death or any other punishment provided by this Act".
The first effect of the Amendment would be to take out the words "death or any other punishment" so as to make the effect of Clause 1 (5) include not merely Sections 226 (2) and (5) of the Army Act but also those words in Section 24, "death or any other". The effect would be to abolish the death penalty in respect of offences listed in Section 24.
Section 25 (1) reads:
…shall…be liable to suffer death or any other punishment provided by this Act.
The Amendment which I am now moving proposes to insert in regard to "death or any other" exactly what is proposed with the same words in the previous Section.
The next effect is in Section 70 of the Army Act, 1955, and there the words "or

murder" shall be taken out of Section 70 (3), which reads:
A person convicted by court-martial of an offence against this section shall—

(a) if the corresponding civil offence is treason or murder be liable to suffer death…"

The words "or murder" would come out if the Amendment were accepted.
The first effect would be to do what in all the years in which I have been a Member of the House of Commons has been the annual effort of the House to do, namely to take out of the Army Act the death penalty and to abolish it except where in civilian law that penalty would apply. The House of Commons has had many debates about this, and I should have thought that with the change in public opinion, the change in the general law and the change in the attitude of people towards the death penalty together with the circumstances in which offences are committed, the Committee would be willing at long last to abolish the death penalty in relation to these offences.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): Is the hon. Member suggesting that the death penalty for murder can be imposed by court-martial in cases where it cannot be imposed by the civil courts?

Mr. Silverman: I am suggesting the exact opposite. If we are to look at the efforts being made on this occasion we must look at all the Amendments that will be proposed, including two new Clauses. There effect would be to assimilate, as far as murder is concerned—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will confine himself to this Amendment, because we shall not discuss the other Amendments with this one unless, of course, there is an understanding in the Committee that hon. Members would prefer it that way.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged, Mr. Thomas. I was trying to answer the Attorney-General's question whether it was our desire that a court-martial should inflict the death penalty in circumstances where the civil court would not inflict it. I am saying that that is not our intention and I am trying to draw the Attorney-General's attention to


subsequent Amendments to show that that is not the case.

Mr. Paget: The effect of the Amendment, as I understand it, with respect to the Attorney-General's question, is that in the case of murder, a court-martial would not have the power to impose a death penalty; that is to say, that where there was a charge of murder the trial would be by civilian jury, because one feels that in that case, perhaps above all others, it is desirable to have a jury and, of course, within our law murder is the leading crime in respect of which there is extra-territorial jurisdiction. In other words, wherever a murder is committed, the man can always be brought in for trial and he can be tried in this country for a murder committed anywhere in the world.
There is another point which arose in a case some time ago and which has a certain relevance to the Amendment. It arose out of the trouble that today our troops are often stationed in that major part of the civilised world in which the death penalty has been abolished.
8.0 p.m.
Let us realise that this island is part of a small area in the world in which the death penalty for murder is still law. Hon. Members will recall the case of the two sergeants. One murdered the other and subsequently married the widow. The Army was faced with the difficulty of trying that case by court martial in West Germany, where there was no capital punishment. In spite of the German equivalent of the Visiting Forces Act, it was regarded as politically, and, indeed, in all decency, impossible to execute the sentence of death in those circumstances.
Therefore—and I am dealing here purely with Section 70—it is probably now desirable, for a variety of reasons, that capital murder at any rate should be tried by jury only, and that nobody should be executed for murder save as a result of the verdict of a jury of his peers in this country.
Again, there are climatic conditions, circumstances of service, and feelings such as arose in the Kenya emergency, in which, perhaps, many different ideas of the sanctity of life and of justice itself impinge from outside. If we have to do this thing at all, it is probably better that it should be confined to a

jury, and nothing but a jury, to pass this dreaded sentence of capital punishment. So much for Section 70 of the Act.
I am not attempting to touch the crime of treason. We never have. None of the Amendments which we have ever moved has done that. But is it necessary, certainly in peace time, that soldiers should be subject to the threat of execution for crimes which are not subject to the death penalty if committed by anybody but a soldier? What are those crimes? Section 24 (1) says:
Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy…
We have had very great difficulty in defining what an "enemy" is. If our troops are serving with the United Nations in the Congo, for instance, who is the enemy? We do not know. Who was the enemy in the Suez expedition? Was there an enemy? In the sort of circumstances that we face in the world today, this sort of crime becomes very difficult to define. The subsection states:
Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy—

(a) abandons or delivers up any place or post which it is his duty to defend, or induces any person to abandon or deliver up any place or post which it is that person's duty to defend…"

Just what does that mean? If it be treason, well and good. But if this be short of treason, how does it arise, and why? What has the Army in mind?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not quite understand my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about treason as being worse than murder. Surely, in a considerable number of injustices in British history, people have been executed for treason? For example, there was the crime of Sir Roger Casement, and there was the doubtful case of William Joyce. I will not go as far back as Sir William Wallace, but I suggest that my hon. and learned Friend is prejudiced against the crime of treason.

Mr. Paget: No, I am not in the least prejudiced against the crime of treason. I am seeking to stay within relevance. By civil law, the crime of treason is capital. Although I should like to see capital punishment totally abolished in all circumstances—I have never had any doubt about that—I am not arguing for anything as wide as that. I am only


asking why it is necessary to have a capital punishment which is applicable to soldiers but not to civilians in cases which are less than treason.
If this Amendment were accepted, the soldier would be in the same position as the civilian. All the Amendment seeks to do is to put the soldier who has not committed treason in the same position regarding the death penalty as any other citizen of this country. I will return to this, because I feel, particularly when we are dealing with courts martial, that if we are to hang somebody it is important that we should define his crime. If ever any definition be required, it is where we choose deliberately and without necessity to take human life. We should at least define the crime.
I will, therefore, go through these provisions and ask the Secretary of State what he understands the law to be. I believe that these provisions are largely survivals of a different age, using words which conceive quite different circumstances from those of today.
When we talk of a person who
…abandons or delivers any place or post…
we are considering the case of Admiral Byng. His was the case which people had in mind when this kind of thing was drawn up. They were thinking of a commander who did less than his best. The provision subsequently became qualified by the words
…with intent to assist the enemy…
which arose when capital punishment for cowardice was removed. Therefore, we have a crime left over which was really designed for the commander who did less than his best to maintain his position. With the elimination of cowardice I believe that, short of treason, Section 24 (1, a) is pretty well meaningless. If not, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could describe to me the sort of circumstances, short of treason, which he feels fall within it.
Then paragraph (b):
does any Act calculated to imperil the success of operations of Her Majesty's Forces, of any Forces co-operating therewith or any part of any of those forces.
What does that mean beyond giving aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies? If the man intentionally gives aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies, that is

treason. I ask the Minister to tell us what this covers? Short of treason, why does he want it?
The next paragraph says:
having been made a prisoner of war, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage.
I find that the most unhappy of these provisions. I think that probably the same argument would apply as I have applied to the others, that the prisoner who serves in the enemy forces is guilty of treason. Indeed, if William Joyce were guilty of treason, it seems impossible for anybody to say that a prisoner who joins the enemy's forces and serves with them is not guilty of treason.
Nevertheless, I feel that these words and this Section are particularly objectionable because people may not wish to use the word "treason". I believe that we know enough about the human mind and about the techniques for getting control of a human mind to feel that to shoot a prisoner because he is brainwashed to the point at which he serves the enemy is neither humane nor civilised. One of the most terrifying things of our generation is the capacity to take away a brave man's mind and make him a different person by the scientific breaking of his personality and the creating of a new one. That is not inhibited by threats of hanging, or shooting or anything else. This is as great an injury as can be done to a man, and from Korea we know the scale on which it was done.
We know from our own experience with Mau Mau. I do not say that our rehabilitation campaign was not justified. I think that it was totally necessary. It was a wonderful achievement to bring these men back into society, and make them new people. We made new people of those who had completely turned. It shows the terrifying capacity to change a person's personality and make him subservient to one's will when one has him in one's power. Do we really want to retain the death penalty here? Can we even contemplate using it for the man who has been brainwashed?
In the case which is grave or shocking enough, treason is available, but if one is going to do it at all, do the big


thing and make it treason. If, for instance, we had been in the position of the Russians and had had a General Vlassov, surely we should have been justified in dealing with him as a traitor, but we should not have been justified in dealing with the lesser ignorant Russian soldiers who were won round by the Germans, little knowing what they could do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In the case of Marshal Tukachevsky, executed for treason and later rehabilitated, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman would not justify in retrospect the execution of Marshal Tukachevsky as the Russians are not doing that now?

Mr. Paget: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not see the relevance of that to what I am saying. My only point is that we do not need a provision of this kind to deal with persons who under that kind of pressure may be brainwashed into serving the enemy. We do not need it for that.
If we have a real traitor like General Vlassov, who, after defending Moscow, and being captured there in the last war, served Hitler and commanded a brigade of renegade Russians against his own country, the civil law provides all the instruments we need. Surely we do not need this for the lesser fry. It is inhuman and, in the light of what we know, indecent to have it.
8.15 p.m.
This story possibly illustrates war as it affects a vast number of people. Two prisoners serving with Rommel's Panzers in North Africa were captured. There was great difficulty because there was no means of communicating with them until in a prisoner-of-war camp somebody recognised the language they spoke as resembling the language spoken on the North-West Frontier of India. Eventually a professor in Tibetan arrived from the British Museum, and the prisoners were found to be Tibetans. They had come to the plains because of drought in the hills. They had been caught by the Russians and conscripted into the Russian Army. They had then been captured and conscripted into the German Army. When they were captured by the British Army they were incapable of communicating with anybody but each other. They were delighted eventually to find somebody with whom they could communicate and they said

that there was one question which they would like to ask. They said: "In our great travels there has been much shooting. What is it all about?"
People get caught up in the cogs of this sort of machine and to take this special grim power, an exception in our law and an exception in a greater part of the civilised world, and apply it to prisoners-of-war seems wrong.
Paragraph (d) says:
furnishes the enemy with arms or ammunition or with supplies of any description.
Again, is not that giving aid and comfort to the enemy? If that is not treason, what do the words cover? If we do not know what the words cover other than treason, let us stick to the well-defined crime which we know, and let us realise that this is for the gravest of all crimes and nothing else.
The next paragraph says:
harbours or protects an enemy not being a prisoner-of-war.
Again, if this be criminal, it is treason. It is giving aid and comfort to the Queen's enemies—the simplest of the offences of treason—but to say that we are to execute somebody because in certain circumstances he might have displayed a mercy which he ought not to have displayed, is not a reality, and I do not think that anyone would do it for a moment. Why have it here? What do we want here if it is not treason, when we have already got treason?
Then we come to the question of communicating:
Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy communicates with or gives intelligence to the enemy shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer death"—
and so on. Again, the same question. If that is not treason, what is it? I feel that the Minister must face this, if he asks for this dread penalty. Will he tell us what are the circumstances for which he requires a special law, and in which circumstances the punishment for treason will not serve him?
We come to the next one:
Any person subject to military law who without authority communicates with or gives intelligence to the enemy shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable"—
to a lesser penalty. The essence of the thing is the intention to assist the enemy. How is that conceived as being


other than treason? I myself feel very strongly that, having a well-defined offence, known by our law, which covers the circumstances here, which covers not only the soldier but every other man and woman in this country, that is now available, to have a death penalty applicable to soldiers' crimes, and apparently applicable in circumstances like these which I have asked the Minister to define, seems to me to be quite wrong.

Mr. Profumo: No one can listen to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), when he speaks on this subject, without being deeply moved and deeply impressed, and I hope that he and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and, indeed, the whole Committee, will accept what I should like to say to the Committee against the background of the deepness of my own convictions and the sincerity of the arguments which I shall put forward, for it is not easy to argue against the very cogent speech such as the hon. and learned Gentleman made.
It is the intention of this Amendment, if I read it rightly, that we should abolish the death penalty for all offences of aiding the enemy and communicating with the enemy, both with intent to assist the enemy, and also for murder. This would leave the death penalty in the Services Acts available for treason, which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned and which is dealt with by Section 70; for more serious forms of mutiny Section 31 (1); for failure to suppress mutiny with intention to assist the enemy, Section 32. All these would be left. I cannot see the logical distinction between what the Amendment removes and what would be left in.
Of the three offences which are covered by the Amendment, the first two—aiding and communicating with the enemy—are akin to treason, for which the only penalty under civil and military law is death. In Sections 24 and 25 of the Services Acts, which deal with the two offences—and, incidentally, these two offences can only be committed in war time, and, when looking at these Acts, we have to consider not only their administration in peace time, but in war time as well—the death penalty is the maximum punishment. This enables a military court to award a punishment

less than death in circumstances such as the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly outlined to the Committee.
So far as murder is concerned, the changes introduced by the Homicide Act, 1957, were applied in the same way both to civil courts and courts-martial, with the exception that a person tried by court-martial for a second murder is not, for that reason, liable to the death penalty. Murder committed in the United Kingdom must be tried by a civil court, and the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested to us that perhaps we should try to bring soldiers back from abroad to try them in a civil court.
I repeat, first, that we have to have our military and Service laws applicable to war time. Supposing that somebody commits a murder in, say, Burma, for the sake of using a far-off country, would we be able to bring that soldier back to this country, with all the paraphernalia and all the difficulties of war time? I suggest that it would be very difficult to bring soldiers serving abroad back to this country and try them fairly under our civil system, because we could not compel any foreign witnesses to come here if they did not want to. I do not believe that the hon. Member's suggestion is practicable.

Mr. Paget: We do not have to bring them back. The position is that we cannot hang them unless we do bring them back, but we can court-martial them and sentence them to life imprisonment.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Member is not following my argument. He asked, in his speech, why we needed this provision, and why we did not try these people under the civil system. We cannot set up a system of civil courts in war time, in a foreign country, and it would be difficult to bring offenders back here and try them, because we would not always be able to bring the witnesses back. If the death penalty for capital murder were removed from the Service Acts a soldier might receive a different sentence according to whether the offence was committed in the United Kingdom or overseas. The Select Committee which prepared the current Act reduced the number of offences for which the death penalty could be awarded when the primary reason was cowardice, but


retained it when there was an element of treachery.
We must retain these provisions, so that the Measure can be operated in peace time and war time. It would not be enough merely to stick to the word "treachery". The hon. and learned Member is an eminent lawyer. I do not pretend to be, although my father was, but I know that to bring a charge of treachery is, technically, extremely difficult. It may be that the crime committed is akin to treachery, though technically less than treachery, and I believe that for the protection of our country we must retain these provisions. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I missed from the right hon. Gentleman's argument any passage which indicated his appreciation of the real offence of retaining the death penalty in the cases covered by Sections 24 and 25. Quite apart from the general objections to inflicting the death penalty at all, the offence of these two Sections is that they permit the infliction of the capital penalty not solely for the offence which the culprit has committed, but apparently for the status in which he committed it.
Any one of the offences enumerated in these two Sections may or may not be as heinous as the right hon. Member suggested. Some would be, and some would not. But the quality of the offence is not so affected by the question whether or not the culprit is subject to military law as to justify a difference between treating it capitally and treating it non-capitally. The right hon. Gentleman did not address his argument to that point. Even where the offence is committed abroad it may be committed by a person not subject to military law and if that were the case by these very Sections the capital penalty would not be exacted.
By what possible justification, nowadays, can we apply a distinction of that kind—death or not death—not according to the quality of the offence committed; not according to the damage it did; not according to the necessity for deterring the commission of the offence by others, but solely according to whether or not the person committing the offence is subject to military law?

I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would deal with that point. Why should we continue this discrimination, which is generally offensive to all those who are interested in the penal code, even in a military sense?

Mr. Cronin: This is not an official Opposition Amendment, and we do not take an official view about it. It is a matter on which there has been a great searching of hearts and consciences, and we are content to allow hon. Members to vote entirely as they think fit. But I was greatly moved by the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) put forward the case for the Amendment, and also by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and as an individual £ shall certainly support them.
To me, the death penalty is intolerable under all circumstances, and I believe that that view is to be held even more strongly under conditions of active service, when emotions tend to be inflamed, and reason takes a rather inferior position in settling the issue. During active service conditions there is also a tendency for officers to feel obliged to adopt a tough attitude. For that reason, the death penalty may be awarded in circumstances in which it would not be awarded normally.
I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that we must have the death penalty simply because, otherwise, technical difficulties would be involved in bringing back an offender from abroad, or obtaining witnesses from abroad. That cannot be a reason for taking anybody's life. I content myself with saying that if my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne intends to press the Amendment to a Division I shall support him.

The Attorney-General: I wish to say a word in answer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). I wish, also, to reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I submit that one must start by realising that there has to be a disciplinary code for those in the Armed Services and it carries penalties for those guilty of offences against the code. Secondly, one must bear in


mind that the Select Committee appointed to review the old Army Act, on which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) played such an active part, considered all the courses to which reference has been made and was in favour of their retention. I think that there is a strong case for the retention of the Sections in their present form.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton went through the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 in some detail. He emphasised the case of the soldier who might be taken prisoner and be subjected to brain washing. That is not a criterion which we should apply to this Section. If that were the case, the Section enables a lesser punishment than death to be imposed in the event of a conviction. Here, the question at issue is whether it is right and necessary in war time—offences under Sections 24 and 25 may be committed only in war time—to retain the capital sentence. That is a matter of policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that these offences when charged under Section 70 link civil offences with treason. I think that there is a great advantage in keeping these specific offences, which are dealt with in the Army Act, 1955, Part II, under the heading of
Treachery, cowardice and offences arising out of military service.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that sometimes the facts might warrant a charge under the ancient Treason Act and sometimes the same facts might warrant a charge under this Section. But I do not think that there is any argument for making the penalty for treason when charged as a civil offence, a different penalty from treasonable conduct charged under Section 24.
I know the views of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton about the capital sentence for murder, and he knows mine. But it is a fact that by the Homicide Act, 1957, a capital sentence can be imposed for murder only in special circumstances where it could be imposed by the civil courts. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Section 8 (1) of that Act he will see that it is therein provided.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it would be an improvement if any case of capital murder were

tried in this country and a soldier accused of this offence brought back and tried in this country before a jury. I submit that that might be entirely impracticable in wartime. Consideration might be given administratively to that problem in peacetime but, as was said by my right hon. Friend, we are considering a code which has to apply in wartime as well as in peacetime and that suggestion would not work extremely well.
We have had a useful discussion. My right hon. Friend and I have listened carefully to everything that has been said but, for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend, we are not able to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Paget: The Attorney-General raised two distinct points. The first was that of the crime of murder committed by troops abroad in time of war. If it were impracticable in circumstances of war—and I do not think, taking for example the Burma campaign, there were any circumstances in the last war in which it was not possible—to send people back to this country for trial, the only tragedy which we face is that these men could not be hanged. It is not that they could not be punished.
Secondly, it is important, when dealing with this subject, to remember the protection of trial by jury and to try to preserve that protection. There may be cases of a recalcitrant witness not being able to attend a trial by jury, but in such cases the soldiers would be fortunate enough to be sentenced to life imprisonment, instead of being hanged. I cannot find it to be any great tragedy that in a few odd cases that might occur.
In the generality of cases, if the crime were severe enough, the man would be brought back. That is the reality of the situation, apart from the fact that in Colonial Territories, where the soldier can be tried under the colonial law, I do not think that our troops are in any territory where the death penalty applies. It does not apply in Germany or Singapore and I do not think it applies in Malaya.

Mr. Wigg: It would be interesting to know if there is a distinction made between those who are on active service and those who are not.

Mr. Paget: It applies in Germany, technically, but in the decision in the case of the two sergeants it was decided that, for political reasons, it was impossible to execute one of our troops who committed a murder in a country where the death penalty did not apply.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely it was not so much a political reason. There is an agreement in which the Federal Government laid it down, as a condition for permitting the operation of military law in Germany, that no sentence should be inflicted in excess of the sentence that the German civil courts could have inflicted—and, in any case, in Federal Germany there is no death penalty and these men could not have been executed.

The Attorney-General: I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is right as to there being an agreement that an execution should not be carried out on Western German territory, but I believe that power has been taken to secure the removal of someone to this country in those circumstances.

Mr. Paget: In any case, we are in the position where, generally speaking, our troops stationed abroad are not subject to the death penalty for murder. Is it, therefore, asking very much to suggest that, in the minority of cases, a man should not be denied a trial by jury when his life is at stake just because he is a soldier? That is all we ask here.
8.45 p.m.
The other Section is deliberately confined to these listed cases. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed entirely to answer my case. I asked him to define any case here that fell within these limits and that was not treason. If treason be available, to ask for a special military crime the Government must be in a position to state the circumstances in which they want it, but both the Minister and the Attorney-General have totally failed to give a single instance.
What they have said is something quite different. They have said, "We want to have charges that carry the death penalty, but charges in respect of which the court has a discretion to give some lesser penalty." There is no difficulty about that. If we charge a man with treason, we can have a second count

for an offence less than treason, and if he be acquitted of treason he may be sentenced for the lesser offence, but let us understand that it is the lesser offence—

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that, in order to award the lesser penalty, a court should willingly find someone not guilty of treason who, in its opinion, is guilty of treason?

Mr. Paget: I am, on the contrary, saying exactly the opposite. In fact, in the sort of cases described here no one would dream of bringing a charge of treason, and the Government know it perfectly well. That is the point. If the death penalty did not apply in these sort of cases no one would dream of bringing a charge of treason.
Whether or not the death penalty was abolished, in any sort of offence that is serious enough to carry the death penalty a charge of treason would be brought in any case, because it is confined to that very serious kind of offence; the man who, as a prisoner of war, not merely serves with the enemy, but the man who recruits for the enemy, who becomes the leader of the enemy's forces, who goes round the prison camps recruiting for the enemy—that is the sort of offence for which one would consider the death penalty here. When that sort of thing happens the charge is treason, whether under military law or not.
I therefore submit that these cases are quite unnecessary and unreal; that we are in a position to put the soldier in the same position as the civilian and to say—and this should be our principle—that no one should be subjected to the death penalty simply because he is a soldier. That is all I ask, and it does not seem to be a great deal to ask.

Mr. Wigg: It is the last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that worries me. He carries me with him on Section 70, but when it comes to Sections 24 and 25, and he says that one must impose on a soldier a greater obligation than on a civilian, I must part company with him—

Mr. S. Silverman: Not obligations—greater penalties.

Mr. Wigg: Yes, greater penalties. It seems to me that by entering into the


service of the Crown, and becoming a soldier, a man does not cease to be a civilian. He does not, as it were, cease to have the same obligations as a civilian, but undertakes an obligation additional to that of the civilian. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman differs from me. All of us have searched our consciences on this point, remembering our history.

Mr. Silverman: Is not my hon. Friend missing the point? Under Sections 24 and 25 no one can be sentenced to death unless he does certain things with the intent to assist the enemy. That is the defence for the Sections. Suppose that a person charged is not a soldier, but a civilian, and suppose that he does any one of the things enumerated in these Sections with the intent to assist the enemy. In my hon. Friend's opinion, is he guilty of a smaller crime than the soldier who did the same thing? If not, why should the soldier be subject to a greater penalty?

Mr. Wigg: The reason why I did not read the footnote in the "Manual of Military Law" is that my eyes sometimes fail me. If I can focus them now, I should like to read the footnote. It is on page 1:
It is therefore highly important that the mistakes should be corrected, which supposes that an Englishman, by taking upon himself the additional character of a soldier, puts off any of the rights and duties of an Englishman.
It goes on to say that he undertakes greater obligations.
During our deliberations in the Select Committee, we looked at this problem of the death penalty with great care. There were a number of hon. Members who shared the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). We were guided by the principle that in 1930 the charges relating to cowardice no longer carried the death penalty. We came to the conclusion that the provisions

of Sections 24 and 25 were right, that we could not have a state of affairs in which a man, for reasons of weakness or character or because of pressures exerted on him, could assist the enemy in such a way which might imperil the success of operations and therefore the lives of thousands of his comrades. For that reason, it was vital that we should retain the death penalty.

It may be that there is some additional information which causes a change on that point, but I cannot depart from the conclusion which I then reached unless the arguments which cause that change can be made available to me. I am not attempting to confront my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton with the logic of 1955 and arguing that necessarily it applies in 1961. It may not apply. I should like him to tell me—my vote is in the balance at the moment—why I should support something which both he and I rejected in 1953 and 1954.

Mr. Paget: My own feeling now is the same as it was in 1955. I opposed it then, and I still oppose it.

Mr. Silverman: There is one change which has taken place since 1955 which might affect by hon. and learned Friend's thinking on the subject. Parliament has changed the law about the death penalty very considerably to bring it into line with more modern thinking on the subject. It might well be that what my hon. Friend thought was right in 1955 in the then state of the law about the death penalty might not be right now, having regard to the changed thinking of hon. Members on this subject and in the law of the land.

Mr. Wigg: I can accept that argument in relation to Section 70. My difficulty relates to Section 24.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 119, Noes 183.

Division No. 153.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Blyton, William
Deer, George


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Awbery, Stan
Boyden, James
Diamond, John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cliffe, Michael
Dodds, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Cronin, John
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Darling, George
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Evans, Albert




Finch, Harold
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mackie, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Small, William


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Mapp, Charles
Snow, Julian


Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stones, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mendelson, J. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, George


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.
Symonds, J. B.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hilton, A. V.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oswald, Thomas
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, Will
Wainwright, Edwin


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Whitlock, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Kelley, Richard
Popplewell, Ernest
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lawson, George
Proctor, W. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Randall, Harry
Woof, Robert


Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Logan, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



McCann, John
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacColl, James
Robertson, J. (Paisley)
Mr. M. Foot and


McInnes, James
Ross, William
Mr. Emrys Hughes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Deedes, W. F.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Allason, James
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Barlow, Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert


Barter, John
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bell, Ronald
Farey-Jones, F. W.
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Finlay, Graeme
McLaren, Martin


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gammans, Lady
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bishop, F. P.
Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Maginnis, John E.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Box, Donald
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Marshall, Douglas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Braine, Bernard
Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Brewis, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Mawby, Ray


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Buck, Antony
Grimston, Sir Robert
Mills, Stratton


Bullard, Denys
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nabarro, Gerald


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hendry, Forbes
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chataway, Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holland, Philip
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cole, Norman
Holt, Arthur
Pitman, I. J.


Collard, Richard
Hopkins, Alan
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cooke, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pott, Percivall


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Corfield, F. V,
Iremonger, T. L.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Coulson, J. M.
Jackson, John
Pym, Francis


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, James


Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Currie, G. B. H,
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kershaw, Anthony
Roots, William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Scott-Hopkins, James



Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry








Sharples, Richard
Teeling, William
Walter, Peter


Shaw, M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene


Shepherd, William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Whitelaw, William


Smithers, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Turner, Colin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Speir, Rupert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vane, W. M. F.
Woollam, John


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wade, Donald



Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Talbot, John E.
Walder, David
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Mr. F. Pearson.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(TERMS OF ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR FORCES.)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "term" to the end of the Clause and to insert:
as if he had enlisted in the police force".
The purpose of the Amendment is to give the soldier the same terms of service rights as a police officer. I hold the view that the serving soldier is entitled to just as much consideration from the community as the police officer and that if the soldier wishes to terminate his engagement in the Army on giving the same notice as a policeman, he should have that right.
I do not wish to argue this at length, except to say that soldiers who may have been attracted into the Army by television advertising or by reading the recruiting advertisements in the papers might discover after a certain length of time that they no longer wish to serve in the Army. I would give them the same rights as those possessed by the police officer who comes to the conclusion after having served three or four years in the police force that he wishes to leave. I would give the soldier the same opportunity to opt out.
I do not believe that we should keep people in the Army when they no longer wish to serve in it, any more than we are entitled to keep men in the coalmines when they no longer wish to serve there or to keep them in Parliament when they no longer wish to serve in Parliament. I would give the serving soldier the same opportunity of applying for the Chiltern Hundreds as any hon. Member who debates the Army and Air Force Act.
There might be a soldier who might enlist in the Army for the purpose of

fighting to defend the country against the Russians. Then he might take an interest, as many soldiers do nowadays, in international affairs and he might come to the conclusion that he would not be serving the interests of the country if he were involved in a war over Formosa or Cuba. I would, therefore, give the soldier far more opportunity to exercise his freedom of judgment than there is at present. Just as a police officer is entitled to say, after a certain time, "I should be far better off if I retired from the police force and became a lawyer or a company director or a member of Imperial Chemical Industries", and just as the police superintendent can now decide to retire from the force and take up farming, so I want to give the soldier the same sort of liberty that we demand for the ordinary citizen.
I think, therefore, that the Amendment is perfectly reasonable. The police force at present protects the people far more than does the average soldier. When there is such a demand that we should deal with crime, when so much violence is reported in the papers and there is so much crime that hon. Members opposite get so indignant about, the man in the police force is serving his country far better and is doing a more useful service to the community than if he were serving in Egypt, Singapore, Hong Kong, or any other part of the world to which soldiers are called upon to go. I realise that this is not a normal view to introduce in debate on this Act, but greatly to my surprise the Amendment appears to be in order. I think that it is one of the most sensible Amendments that has ever managed to get on to the Notice Paper.

Mr. Mayhew: Would my hon. Friend help us by reminding us what the terms are for policemen who wish to leave the


service? In other words, in what circumstances could a soldier leave the battlefield? What notice would he be required to give?

Mr. Hughes: I would say 24 hours' notice, if my hon. Friend wants a specific case. AM this appears to be very novel, but I can assure the Committee that, if soldiers had been able to give 24 hours' notice before a battle, there would have been far fewer battles in history—on either side.
I do not see why soldiers should be regarded as needing stricter discipline than the police or prison warders. I believe that we need prison warders more than we need soldiers at present. I believe that there is a public opinion in the country which would welcome soldiers saying, "We regard the enemy at home as more dangerous than the enemy abroad, and we will be doing far more useful service in protecting people against mailbag robberies in the City of London, or against bandits who go off with the pay on Fridays."
I know that the idea is novel, but I ask hon. Members to think about it. I ask the Secretary of State if he can give a logical argument against it. Is not the greatest enemy of our time the criminal, the bandit, the robber, the sex maniac, about whom all of us are indignant? The greatest enemy to our society is not Russia. The Russians do not intend to invade and rob this country. The enemy is crime, the indolence and the other things that cause crime. We need far more police to deal with the conditions which have been created by this disorganised and frustrated society of ours. I would welcome a great exodus from the Army into the police force, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not think that, after a few months in this House, I should hear a member of the Labour Party, and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in particular, advocate that citizens of this country who accept public obligations should be free to discard them for reasons of private profit. But that was the principal argument that he put forward. He argued that people should be enabled to throw overboard the public obligations they have voluntarily undertaken in

order to become directors of I.C.I., or something of that nature.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There are respectable precedents. The last two Colonial Secretaries have left the service of the community to go into business.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): Order. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is going away from the Amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The two cases to which the hon. Member has referred now receive his unqualified approbation, and I am extremely glad to hear it.
We must bear in mind that there are certain services, which we invite our citizens to perform and which carry with them certain obligations. The primary obligation is that, when their services are needed, they do not withdraw them. The gravamen of the hon. Member's argument is that, at the very point when those services may become least desirable to render, the people who voluntarily undertook to perform them should, because they are hazardous, be at liberty to discard them.
I wish as strongly as I can to rebut the hypothesis that, when a person takes public money to fulfil certain public functions, he should be at liberty to throw his obligations overboard when they become undesirable or, alternatively, when other opportunities become more desirable.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Marsh: I oppose the Amendment, but not for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The suggestion that a person who takes public money and accepts a public appointment is thereby debarred from changing his mind at some future date is extraordinary, and a suggestion which we do not accept in any other field of public life.
If a Member of Parliament wishes to cease being a Member, he is entitled to do so. As my hon. Friend said, if a member of the police force wishes to cease to be a member of that force, he, too, is entitled to do so. I oppose the Amendment, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will advise his hon. Friends to oppose the Amendment, but for reasons different from those advanced by his hon. Friend.
Although I oppose the Amendment, my hon. Friend made an important point when he said that, whether one agrees with it or not, there is a tendency to reject anything novel. There is a tendency to place the Army in too much of a watertight compartment and to look on the person who joins the Army as having virtually surrendered all his civil rights.
My opposition to the Amendment is not on the basis of the individual's obligation to his public office, because I do not think that that argument can be sustained. It is not an argument which has been suggested in relation to any other public office. If the argument of the hon. Member for Tiverton were relevant to the Amendment, I should have thought that he would have argued not the case of people in the Army, but the case of all people in public service. It is difficult to understand why anybody who is in public service should be expected to be under a greater moral obligation than a person in private service. It would be a strange doctrine which held that the man who worked for a private enterprise firm had fewer responsibilities to his employer than a man who worked for the State. Surely the important thing is that they have obligations to their employers for as long as they are employed? But this does not meet the argument about whether they should be able by common consent to terminate that employment at some stage as a result of having changed their minds.
We must bear in mind that we have here the unusual position of a person entering into a contract for as long as twenty-two years. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that a person may undertake a contract and subsequently change his mind, which everybody does, in twenty-two years. The circumstances which caused him initially to consider joining the Armed Forces may have ceased to exist. The circumstances which exist subsequent to his enlistment might be the reverse of those which gave rise to his enlistment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is an important distinction. If one engages in private employment, with certain limitations one can foresee the conditions which will appertain during that engagement.

When one engages in the Armed Forces, the most pertinent conditions are conditions of war, which are exceptional. Indeed, the House has extended its life beyond the five-year period laid down by law under conditions of what one might call an unnatural emergency.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable that when people engage in public service to render their primary service under exceptional conditions they should not be governed by the considerations which primarily concern normal conditions, rather than exceptional conditions where there is a danger not just to a limited range of interests within the country, but a danger to the existence of everyone in the country.

Mr. Marsh: I accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the position, but it brings me to an entirely different conclusion. The situation could exist completely in reverse. The hon. Gentleman approaches it as some moral argument and moral obligation on individuals in contracts which they have undertaken, but I would agree with him that it would be amoral, to say the least, for a person to undertake a particular contract in a period of stability and quietness and then suddenly want to "welsh" on that contract because the circumstances have got worse. If the hon. Gentleman pursues that particular argument he will find that it brings him to a complete reversal of the argument which he has been addressing.
Let us take the case of the person taking up military service because there is a state of emergency, because of the threat of his family being endangered by a particular situation, and because he is a sound citizen and wishes to take his part and accept his responsibilities to meet the threat which exists at that time. If the hon. Member's argument is to be accepted, one would presume that he was relieved of that responsibility if, in five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years, we achieved complete peace and stability, and those circumstances would no longer apply.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am very grateful for the hon. Member for giving way again, but as he asked the specific question if I agreed with that proposition, I would merely reply that it has been open to this House every single year to reject the Army Act.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going a little wide of this Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: I understand that, in any case, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but if you say that it is getting outside the terms of this Amendment, Mr. Arbuthnot, I do not think that we want to stray too wide.
What I am suggesting is that in so far as my hon. Friend said that the individual might well change his mind, the hon. Member opposite makes the point that he is obligated for all time by that decision which he takes at one time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not for all time."] No, not for all time, but for the period of the contract; I accept that. This could be said of any other person, and my hon. Friend merely put the point that the contract should not be any more hard and fast than in normal circumstances. We accept that different circumstances exist in war time, when all laws are subject to the emergency, but, generally speaking, they should not be applied in any one aspect of the Service very differently from any other aspect.

Mr. Wigg: The very long engagements were introduced, not for the benefit of the Army, but for the benefit of the soldier, and one of the Amendments which we shall be considering at a later stage concerns the introduction of the 22-year engagement for the Royal Air Force, so that people may have their rights, because men who enlisted only for twelve years could not sign on for a pension. The introduction of the long-service engagement does not abrogate the soldier's right to break the engagement at an earlier stage. But there is a real demand inside the forces for long-term engagements by those who want to see it as their life's work and who want to qualify for their pensions. What used to happen in the old days, particularly in the Royal Air Force, is that these people enlisted and rose to the rank of warrant officer, and so on, and were then suddenly pitchforked into the street, which caused much hardship and heartburn.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that we are getting wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: Naturally, Mr. Arbuthnot, I defer to the Chair if you think that I

have been getting away from the Amendment, but the Amendment wants to bring the Armed Forces of the Crown on to the same basis as the police force, and surely I must be in order if I refer to the conditions under which soldiers and airmen can, in fact, already under the existing law have the right to leave the force if they give due notice. My argument is that the regulations have evolved to their present state to safeguard the rights of long-service soldiers and airmen. That fact needs to be borne in mind.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), as always in our debates on these subjects, is a veritable mine of information, and he has brought facts to light of which I was not aware. With respect, however, I would have thought that the facts to which he has referred have nothing to do with the case for opposing my hon. Friend's Amendment. On the contrary, if this provision exists to safeguard the soldier, he will, presumably, be in a position to decide that he no longer wants his interests safeguarded in that way. That is a valid point in relation to pensions.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It places the soldier in exactly the same position as the school teacher.

Mr. Marsh: I cannot see the point of that intervention at the moment.
We would all probably want to see a situation existing which would safeguard the rights of soldiers to pensions, particularly after long service. I am sure that nobody would be opposed to that. But if this is a major objection to my hon. Friend's Amendment, surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to enable such a person to aggregate his service in small sections rather than have to serve a long period and be bound by it.
Having said what I think of the arguments in favour of the Amendment, against which I do not think that a case was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I want to say a few words in opposition to it. If the Government decide to accept the Amendment some hon. Members on this side of the Committee will feel obliged to vote against it, but if the right hon. Member opposes the Amendment I hope that he will do so for reasons entirely different from those which have been put forward. My hon. Friend clearly


holds views which are well known and respected, but which are not held by the overwhelming majority of our people. My hon. Friend is entitled to hold those views. My objection to the Amendment is that it would make the maintenance of a standing Army impossible, because we would never know, at any given time, how many troops we had. That may be what my hon. Friend wants. He holds views to which he is entitled, and he holds them consistently, but they are views with which the overwhelming majority of our people would find themselves completely at odds.
I would not like us to create a situation in which we imposed upon a soldier anything which we could avoid imposing upon him, if it were to his detriment. We appreciate that a person who joins the Armed Forces takes over disabilities as a result. I hope that hon. Members on both sides, while not wishing to remove those disabilities in their entirety, so that the Army, as such ceased to be able to operate as an effective concern, would wish to compensate the soldier for the disabilities which he undertakes by entering the Armed Forces. In that way we could maintain an Army—not necessarily a large one—which, especially if it existed on the basis of a long-term contract, at the same time compensated the soldier for the very real disabilities which he undertakes upon going into the Army.
It is pefectly understandable that one should not accept the situation that a soldier, by virtue of being a soldier, is a lesser type of human being and not entitled to the same sort of standards as other people. But because of the job he undertakes, it is impossible to apply some of those standards to him. Only for that reason, and in the national interest, I oppose my hon. Friend's Amendment. I hope that at some other time we may consider means whereby we can compensate the soldier for that disability.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Mayhew: So far, the Government have accepted three Amendments and resisted two. I think that the prospects are that the rejection of this Amendment may level the score, if I understand the mind of the Minister aright. I shall not recommend my hon. Friends to support

this Amendment. The case against it has been well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). The fact is that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is a pacifist and wishes to see the British Army disappear. He has drafted an Amendment extremely cleverly with a view to securing that objective.
The weakness of the hon. Member's case he put was revealed when he confessed that every soldier could leave the battlefield at 24 hours' notice. I do not know why he should demand that a soldier should stay on the battlefield for 24 hours. It is wholly inconsistent with his philosophy. Fancy asking a soldier to remain on the battlefield and commit what the hon. Gentleman admits is a gross breach of morals, and require him to stay there for 24 hours by Statute—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It was a casual reply to an interruption. I do not propose to put that in the Statute at all.

Mr. Mayhew: No, but there may be a certain degree of misunderstanding about a soldier's obligation to stay on the battlefield were this Amendment accepted. With respect to him, the hon. Member has a great deal of Parliamentary experience but I do not think that he has ever served in a military unit.

Mr. Hughes: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I was recognised as a soldier in the First World War. I was in the Armed Forces for three years. The three years were spent in prison and I was court-martialled five times. I have a greater experience of how the Army works than he has.

Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman's adventures in prison, which do credit to his spirit, no doubt explain his partiality for the police which we find revealed in this Amendment. But perhaps he has not had as long experience of military service as some other hon. Members, including myself. When I imagine the impact on my fellow soldiers of a provision that they could leave the Army at 24 hours' notice I begin to wonder whether, had that been operational between 1939 and 1945, we should have had such a happy outcome of the war. The hon. Member is among the first to acclaim it as a just and necessary war, but had the provision in this Amendment then been in force, I doubt whether we should have won it.
This is not a matter which one should labour too long but it shows the value of parliamentary discussion and the limitations of simply leaving everything to a Select Committee. Though the Select Committee included a number of extremely experienced and hard-working Members of Parliament, the conception behind this Amendment never occurred to any of us. Only when we come to the broader forum of this Committee do we find this extraordinary, novel, imaginative and wholly impracticable suggestion advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.
I am sorry that we cannot officially support the Amendment from this side of the Committee; but, not sharing the basic philosophy of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, we cannot support an Amendment which, I think, more than almost anything else, would make a British Army an impossibility.

Mr. Wigg: In many respects I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I think, judging by the light-hearted way in which he introduced this Amendment, that his main desire was that we should discuss the matter. As to my views on this subject, I am sure my hon. Friend knows where I stand. I intervene in the debate on this Amendment because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who referred to the subject of soldiers leaving the battlefield.
I urge hon. Members to recall what happened in the years between 1914 and 1916. Sixty per cent. of the men who went to France in 1914 were on the Reserve list. If in the infantry, they had completed eight years with the Colours and four years on the Reserve, and the other arms of the Services were in exactly the same position. Of course, a number of them came back to civilian life and were subsequently conscripted in 1916. But my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East underestimates the patriotism of the regular Army. Although they could have walked out, they stayed on.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They would have been shot if they had not.

Mr. Wigg: That is a slanderous statement. That is not only untrue, but my

hon. Friend's kindness of heart appears to be departing from him. His statement represents a great slander to the many thousands of men who fought in the First World War. They would not have been shot. They could have walked out. Naturally, they had additional obligations, since the reserves had been mobilised for another year of additional service.
Let us remember that for many of these men their time expired before the introduction of conscription, which was not introduced until half way through the First World War. Thus, when these men were faced with the situation that has been envisaged by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, hon. Members should realise that these men could have gone back to civilian life, to their families and to their comfort if they had so desired—but they stayed on.

Mr. Hughes: They had to.

Mr. Wigg: They did not.

Mr. Hughes: They would have been court-martialled.

Mr. Wigg: Where these men demanded, the Army discharged its obligations to them and brought them home. They returned to civilian life and, in this context, we must recall that conscription was not introduced until 1916. The ordinary process of transfer on discharge operated in the old Regular Army from 1914 to 1916.
I make that point to the undying honour of those men who preferred the path of duty, even though for many of them it ended in what was, perhaps, an inevitable way. A lot of lessons may be learned by one who has had the honour of being a regular soldier.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) picked up some rather light-hearted words used by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself. I know that the hon. Member for Dudley did not mean to suggest that we were casting aspersions on the quality of British troops from 1914–16. I had in mind no so much the question of the battlefield and the day to day life of the soldier, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley knows such a lot. I am sure that he will be the first


to recognise that in peace time there should not be the easy way out by giving notice.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Dudley realises the need for a certain degree of discipline and order in the terms of service of our Armed Forces. The hon. Member has often made that point and, when we come later to deal with the question of wastage from the Army, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will have a good deal to tell the Committee about the undesirability of extremely easy release from the Armed Forces. That is what we had in mind in resisting this Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): We have had a good-humoured debate—we always do on matters initiated by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—but I am afraid that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I admired the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in presenting the Amendment, and the ingenuity with which he made some points that he seemed rather surprised to find were in order.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not object to his suggestion because of its novelty but because it seems to me to be simply not practicable. He wants the soldier to have the same terms of service as a police officer, and the right to terminate his service almost without notice but, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), it would be extremely difficult to organise an army on that basis.
I must admit that, like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, I would have overlooked the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the old Regular Army, and I was glad that he mentioned it, but it is surely the fact that Parliament, having given a Second Reading to this Bill, has agreed on the necessity of our having an Army. If we have an Army, it must be in a position to fight. My short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is impossible to organise the Army in such a way that when it went on active service the soldiers in it could not certainly be available, because they were at liberty to terminate their engagement in the same way that we understand members of the police force can terminate theirs.
There are ways in which a soldier can terminate his agreement, and if I do not now reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) it is because I believe that on later Amendments we can return to some of his topics.
The final argument of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was more an argument for a larger police force than for different terms and conditions of service in the Army. He said that policemen at home are doing a more valuable job than are our soldiers, but another objection to what he proposes is that, in these days, there is need overseas for soldiers to do a job not dissimilar from that sometimes done by police. Another obstacle to the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that the police have no overseas commitment and, of course, soldiers who are not in a position to fulfil overseas commitments at need are clearly an impracticable component of any Army. With those observations, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No attempt has been made to meet my argument that the soldier should have the same rights of citizenship as the policeman or the school teacher. A school teacher can leave the school tomorrow, get his pension rights and join the Army, but the man in the Army who says, "I have made a mistake—I want to be a school teacher", or, "I think that it is more important that I should protect my wife and children against crime in London", must remain in the Armed Forces.
9.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is an incurable romantic, especially about Service matters. His argument was answered by the Under-Secretary of State, who argues that we must have these coercive powers to keep soldiers in the Army. My hon. Friend says that men serve in the Army purely for love and from a desire to serve their country. This is pure bunk, pure sentimentalism. There was a time in 1917 when the Russian Army suddenly dissolved and someone said, "They have not voted for peace". Lenin said, "But they have voted with their feet". They are not getting people to join the Army because they are not voting for the Army with their feet. They have to bribe the soldiers to come


into the Army. When the bribery fails, and when the soldier finds that the Army is not the Army of the television set, there has to be some kind of conscription.
In my constituency, one person joined the Army last January. Five people in Ayrshire joined the Army in January, 1961. I cannot see a rush to join the Army. When hon. Members on this side of the Committee go on the recruiting platforms to urge people to join the Army—

Mr. Dan Jones: I hope that that time will never come.

Mr. Hughes: If it comes, I should like to see my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) on the recruiting platforms. The last time that I saw my hon. Friend, he was marching from Aldermaston to London.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "the age of eighteen years" and to insert:
the minimum age for man's service".

The Deputy-Chairman: It will be convenient to take with this Amendment those in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), namely, in page 2, line 11, at the end to insert:
until he has attained the age of twenty-one years and when he has attained that age the term shall be",
and in page 2, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a).
It will also be convenient to take with it the two Amendments to Clause 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), namely, in page 4, line 31, to leave out from "enlistment" to "may" in line 33, and in page 4, to leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Hughes: These Amendments are not as revolutionary as the Amendment which has just been negatived. The purpose of them is that no young person should be committed to a long term of service in the Army before he reaches a certain age, which we think should be 21. As we do not think that anyone under 21 should have the right to vote, or that he has reached the age of discretion, until he is 21, I do not believe that anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 should irrevocably commit himself to a long term of twelve or twenty years in the Army.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, it seems to me that the Chair, in selecting his first Amendment, must have overlooked the fact that by it he seeks to leave out the words "the age of eighteen years" and to insert:
the minimum age for man's service".
From what my hon. Friend has said, he is clearly under the impression that the minimum age for a man's service is 21. With respect, that is not so.

Mr. Ramsden: Mr. Ramsden indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I am wrong.

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be best if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) proceeded with his speech.

Mr. Hughes: It was worth while moving the Amendment to find that even my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) can be caught out on a matter of military organisation.

Mr. Ramsden: I meant to agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

Mr. Wigg: Section 2 (5) of the 1955 Act states that
In this Part of this Act the expression 'minimum age for man's service' means the age of seventeen years and six months, except that in such classes of case as may be prescribed"—
that is, under the regulations of Part II of the "Manual of Military Law"—
it means the age of seventeen years.
I was seeking to help my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), because I knew from his liberal attitude that this was a thoroughly reactionary proposal which, perhaps, he had not considered, and it seemed to me that even the Chair had slipped in calling an Amendment which, clearly, is a piece of nonsense.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. It would be better if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) finished speaking to his Amendment and I was allowed to put the Question. At the moment, we are not discussing anything at all.

Mr. Hughes: I am assured by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that I am quite right, as I believe I am. Even if there is a technical irregularity in the first Amendment, which I do not admit, the


subsequent Amendments make clear what the effect will be. The effect of these Amendments is that boys under 21 may commit themselves only until they are 21 and at that age they will have an opportunity to reconsider whether they wish to make the Army their career.

Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend says "boys under 21". Of course, he does not mean that. By his Amendment he rules out boys altogether. According to his Amendment nobody under the age of 18 may be enlisted.

Mr. Hughes: We have reached the stage of quibling. Had we been debating the first Amendment, there might be point in arguing about the technicality, but the effect of the three Amendments—and they must be the same, or they would not be taken together—is that nobody can commit himself until he is 21 and that at 21 he will have the opportunity to reconsider whether he wishes to make the Army his career. I suggest that anybody who is in the Army under the age of 21, whether he is called a boy, a serving soldier or anything else, is too young to commit himself to a long-term Army career. That is the substance of the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: On this issue, I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). My two Amendments in Clause 4, which we are also discussing, seek to achieve the same object. It is not a difficult issue, although I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) concerning the other Amendment. The principle which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has in mind is one which I had endeavoured to deal with in Amendments elsewhere in the Bill. It is briefly that a person under the age of 21 shall not be permitted to commit himself to a military engagement which could take him up to the age of 40. That is a simple proposition and one which should be argued on its merits. There are, no doubt, obvious military arguments which will be advanced.
On this issue, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Government are spending, and successive Governments have spent, enormous sums of money to turn the full forces of propaganda and publicity in support of their recruiting

drive. All of us in the House of Commons are well aware of the considerable effect which those organs can have. I do not think that the Secretary of State would disagree—I do not complain about it—that there is an attempt by the Army publicity services to glamorise the Army. There is an attempt to make it look more attractive than the Army really is.

Mr. Profumo: It would be wholly wrong if the hon. Member tried to make the point that we are attempting to do a confidence trick. That is wholly incorrect. What we are doing with our recruiting campaign is to call the attention of the public to the advantages of service to Queen and country.

Mr. Marsh: I do not want to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman personally, because I do not think that we are at issue on this. But I would say that romantic pictures of a young soldier in some far corner of the Empire, standing beside an attractive swimming pool with palm trees—

Mr. Profumo: It is quite true.

Mr. Marsh: It may be true, but in any Army there are also conditions of extreme unpleasantness and extreme discomfort. I see nothing wrong in the Government trying to recruit people. I personally should like to see a larger conventional Army. I am not quarrelling on this point. But I am saying, and I repeat, that the Government spend a considerable sum of money in painting the Army as a place of almost perpetual attractiveness.
The Government do not show pictures of men scrubbing floors or marching through mud. [Interruption.] If they do, I have not seen them, although I recently read an account which suggested that the Government's publicity service had changed its emphasis. It had discovered that the young man today was less attracted by the idea of sitting on a horse and wearing an elaborate uniform than he was with the idea of being a sort of Errol Flynn of the British Army—I cannot think of a British equivalent—enjoying a certain amount of danger and perhaps a certain amount of hardship. The suggestion that the Army is some great big permanent outward-bound trust or a series of boys' clubs is a misrepresentation of the position. I suggest that we have a situation today where


very considerable powers are exerted with the specific intention of persuading young men to join the Armed Forces. With that I do not quarrel.

Commander J. S. Kerans: Surely what the hon. Member has said of all the efforts made by the Army to get recruits is giving an entirely false impression to the general public.

Mr. Marsh: I was attempting to be quite uncontroversial about this. I am surprised if hon. Members opposite are suggesting that military service, even in peace time, is all pleasant romanticism. I have not seen advertisements which show the normal, mundane unpleasantness of Army life. I should not be surprised if one found advertisements which did, but all the advertisements and all the Government's considerable expensive publicity material taken together do not give a clear picture of what it is like to live for twenty-two years in the Army, any more than all the advertisements which are deliberately directed towards selling a product give an objective account of that product.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Give "Brand X" a chance.

Mr. Marsh: I think that the Government and the Army have tried recently to give "Brand X" a chance by inviting young men to go to units to see what it is like for a weekend or a week, but that does not give them an actual picture of what it is like for over twenty-two years.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Profumo.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE BILL

(RECOMMITTED)

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Marsh: The point I was making was that the Government and the Army have recently introduced an innovation precisely to enable the young Service man to sample what "Brand X" is really like,

in other words to see what Army service is really like. I am sorry if the Secretary of State disagrees, but again I do not even believe that a weekend in an Army barracks gives a picture of what it is like to be in the Army for twenty years though it helps to give some indication.
I suggest that the average young man who joins the Army for long engagement does so without real knowledge of what the Army is like. He does so on the basis of glossy posters and of small advertisements in newspapers. If he joins the Navy he does so believing that he will spend his time wandering round the world visiting exotic places. He may well do so, but he may also spend quite a lot of his time sitting on his bed blancoeing his equipment and doing all sorts of other duties. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think that anybody who speaks about the Army in terms other than the sort of thing that comes from a recruiting sergeant is doing a disservice. I believe that people should join the Army because of what it is. If they get a genuine picture of what it is like to be in the armed forces from the advertisements nothing that I say will change it.

Sir O. Prior-Palmer: The hon. Member is giving the impression that they spend the whole time sitting on their beds blancoeing their equipment. Is that a true picture?

Mr. Marsh: I am not saying that. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member has misunderstood what I have been saying. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member keeps mumbling away to himself I cannot answer his points. If he wants to make an intervention I shall be pleased to hear it. This is a serious point.

Sir O. Prior-Palmer: No.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. and gallant Member may not think it is serious when a person under 21 signs on for twenty years. The hon. and gallant Member may well disagree with my views. He is entitled to do so, but this is a matter of some importance whether one agrees or disagrees. The point which I have made several times and which apparently has been completely missed by the hon. and gallant Member is not that the Army is a place of perpetual unpleasantness and of perpetually sitting


on a bed blancoeing equipment any more than it is a place of perpetual attraction.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Would the hon. Member consider that a person under 21 would be deceived by what he described as a false or exaggerated picture of the Army while a person over 21 would be able to assess the position completely and would not be led astray in that way?

Mr. Marsh: The point I am trying to make is that a person joins the Army today in response to the maximum pressure which can be applied by the very best forms of publicity services. That is common ground between us. I say that that person, when he signs on, has not a complete picture of what life in the Armed Forces is like.

Mr. Gower: But that is true whether the person is under 21 or over 21.

Mr. Marsh: Of course, but generally we in this Committee draw a distinction between a person under 21 and a person over 21. My point is not that people would not want to stay in the Army for twenty-two years, nor that many would not find the Army a satisfactory career, because many of them do. I do not suggest that membership of the Armed Forces is not, to many people, completely satisfying, and I would not try to prevent a person serving in them for twenty-two years. But I do say that a person who is not old enough to vote or to exercise many of the rights which a person over 21 enjoys, and who is not regarded by this Committee or the law as an adult, should not be permitted to sign on at that stage for twenty-two years.
That is particularly important today, when we have a new feature introduced into the matter. It is not only left to a person's knowledge of threats facing his country, or of a particular foreign situation. There is a distinct and highly psychological pressure applied to him. Just as I would object—and I do not know the legal position on this—to a person under 21 being allowed, as a result of modern advertising, to take on unlimited financial commitments, so I object to his being committed, or being able to commit himself, to something which, at some later stage—we are

thinking of a period of twenty years in this case—will be difficult to opt out of.
When I went into the Army for a very limited period, as a conscript for two-and-a-half years, my approach was very different from what it is now. I hope that the attitude of many people changes between the ages of 18 and 30 or 40. Their values become different. When I was about 18 I would have supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire completely, because I would have thought that pacifism was something to which I could subscribe. But people change, particularly in that part of their lives.

Mr. Profumo: Is the hon. Member saying that the Army changed him? I hope so.

Mr. Marsh: I do not think so. I went into the Army shortly after the war, when there was a great deal of confusion and time wasting. It was neither a war-time nor a peace-time Army. Most of us were only waiting to hear when we would get out. There was a different sort of situation then.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why did not my hon. Friend enlist for a further period?

Mr. Marsh: I did not enlist for a further period of twenty-two years because I decided that I did not want to be in the Army for twenty-two years.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend came back to pacifism again.

Mr. Marsh: I have no criticisms to make. There were other people who signed on because of their service in the Army. I am surprised at the amount of opposition to the Amendment, and that there is such strong feeling on this point. My hon. Friend is not saying anything which would cause the Army irreparable damage. He is not saying that people should be prevented from serving for long periods in the Armed Forces, but that people should not, while they are still at school, be in a position to sign away their lives for twenty-two years.

Dr. Alan Glyn: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if one joins the Army one cannot get out for twenty-two years, may I remind him that during the first two or three months one can get out of the Army on the payment of £20, and after that one can buy oneself out.

Mr. Marsh: That is another issue which will be debated on another Amendment. If it is as simple as that, what is all the furore about? Why do hon. Gentlemen feel so strongly about this?
I do not know why hon. Gentleman should be put out by this suggestion. It is merely that some of us believe that a person who is not an adult should not be able to sign away his life until he is well into middle age. It is true that he can buy himself out, but all we are saying is that he should not make the contract in the first instance.

Commander Kerans: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that a vast number of youngsters join the Army out of loyalty to their country and to their Queen, knowing what they will face?

Mr. Marsh: A large number of people are motivated by those emotions in war time. There is not the same degree of pressure in peace time. A person under 18 who has never been in the Army is not in a position to know what it is like to be in the Army for twenty-two years. The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) does him no credit. A person may well get into the Army and decide that he likes it. He may continue to sign on, but it is absurd to suggest that a few weekend camps with the Officer Training Corps or the Army Cadets can give a person an idea of what it is like to undertake a lifetime of service in the Army. Many people who find life as a civilian satisfying did not know that it would be satisfying when they were in their 'teens.

Mr. Paget: I want to try to clear away a little of the heat and nonsense which we have heard. The hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans)—the former gallant captain of the "Amethyst"—asked: are there not a lot of young men who join the Army knowing what it will be like? There is none. Nobody knows what anything will be like. That is what the future holds. It was the Great Khan who sent out with his commands, "Do so-and-so, and if you do it not the Great Khan knoweth not what will happen. God alone knows what will happen."
Let us get away from this nonsense that when one is advertising for recruits one does not do one's best to advertise the most attractive aspects of the Army. Of course one does. Is it seriously suggested that the lady in the poster for the Women's Royal Army Corps has the appearance of the average woman in that Corps? Will the young man who joins really find them all that beautiful? Of course, not. Obviously, when one is advertising, one is keen to display the most attractive. There is nothing objectionable in that, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has been spending a great deal of public money on T.V., and if T.V. is not doing its best to make the Army look attractive, he is wasting a great deal of public money, because I understand that that was the object of the operation. Therefore, let us get away from this nonsense and these shouts that this is unpatriotic and that it is crying down the Army.
I am a member of the Army League, and I am on the executive and on the sub-committee studying recruitment. I have done all that I can and given a good deal of my time to assisting the right hon. Gentleman in getting recruits and to encourage recruiting, but that does not make it necessary to go in for hypocrisy about what one is doing, and to pretend that the things we display are the average. If the man he gets has enough intelligence to be worth having in the Army he will not think it average, either. So much for this sort of nonsense aspect which I think is far from the point.
I now come to the effect of the Amendment, which seems to me to be serious. I ask my hon. Friend to listen to this Clause as it will read if amended:
Where the person enlisting has attained the minimum age for man's service"—
that is to say, 17½—
the term shall be"—
until he has attained the age of 21 years, and when he shall attain that age, the term shall be as provided in subsection (3) in paragraphs (a, b and c). So that whether he be 18 years or not, when he attains the age for man's service he may only in the first instance enlist until he is 21, and when he is 21 he then takes the decision whether to come out, to make it twenty-two years or to make it


twelve years. Since that subsection provides for everything, subsections (3) and (4) go out. Subsection (3) provides:
Where the person…has not attained the age of 18 years, but has attained the minimum age for man's service the said term shall be"—
and so on. There is no need for that, because it is already dealt with. His term shall be until he is 21. In the same way, the provision in subsection (4) is covered. Whether this is right or not, and I am not saying that the proposal is the right one, it is one which makes sense and which achieves what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) set out to do.
Having said that, I would say that this is a matter on which I feel open-minded, save that I think it is a highly important question, because it is our law that we protect minors, and minors are people under 21. No man under 21 can have a contract of personal service enforced against him unless he goes into the Army. No man under the age of 21 can have enforced against him a contract which is to his disadvantage, or is for other than necessities. No man under the age of 21 may enter into a contract of marriage, without the consent of his parents. No man under the age of 21 may vote, and in that sense act as a citizen, and no man under the age of 21 may be a candidate for any office.
We must not make this exception in our own favour and say that men who are too young to enter into a contract, or to make any vital decisions about their lives, shall, none the less, be old enough to enter into a binding contract of service, which would engage the best part of their lives—twenty-two years is a considerable period, although it is possible for a man to come out before then—unless we are faced with a very grave necessity.
There is one other point about which I am not clear. The situation under the Bill will be very different from what it was when the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) and I were dealing with this matter on the Select Committee in 1953. We then provided that if a National Service man was under the age of 21 he should not sign on without his parents' consent. He is not a National Service man any

longer. The Act provides that if he is under the age for man's service—that is, if he is under the age of 17½—he requires the consent of his parents or guardian.
If a man is not a National Service man and is over 17½ is he able to commit himself without parental consent? If that is the case we are facing a very different set of circumstances from those which we were facing in 1953, because the argument then ran something like this: it is one thing if a young man decides at home, and makes his own decision, but if he is taken out of parental control and pressure is put upon him, as may happen, or as his parents may think has happened, great resentment will arise among parents at the thought that their boys have been forcibly taken away from them by National Service and have been induced to commit their lives to the Army.
As far as I remember that was the argument, and the condition regarding parental consent applied only to National Service men. I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that, with the disappearance of National Service, if 18-year olds who have not been allowed to marry the girls they want to marry, or who have been involved in any sort of upset at home, can go off to the Army and commit themselves for very long periods without parental consent, we are dealing with a fairly serious situation. I believe that the size of the Army is enormously important. I believe that a volunteer Army is what we need and what we must try to obtain. If a real case can be made out for the provisions in the Bill in this respect I may accept it, but it is obviously a case in which the right hon. Gentleman is called upon to argue very seriously and cogently for something which runs counter to our general idea of justice to the immature, the youth and the minor—the general idea which we have developed over the centuries and have found necessary in our community. That is why I shall listen with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

Mr. M. Foot: From the reaction from hon. Members opposite to the speeches of my hon. Friends it appears that there is some objection to this proposal. Although the Minister has shown a


great readiness to accept Amendments from this side of the Committee, it appears that he also will oppose this Amendment.
I think that the Government and hon. Members opposite should think more carefully about this Amendment in their own interests and in the interests of recruiting a large-size Army. It may be that were this accepted, it would prove the most revolutionary proposal ever made for increasing the numbers of recruits to the Army. If it were the case that the Army had to prove during the period between the age of 17½ and 21 to a young person that it was worth while for him to stay in the Army for a large part of his life, conditions in the Service during those years would be dramatically improved.
Were this proposal accepted, it might achieve more in changing conditions in Army service than all the other measures which the Minister has presented over recent years. There would have to be a situation in the first two or three years of the young man's service in which the Army would have to prove, by deeds and by the conditions provided, that it wished to keep him in the Service, and that there was a real encouragement for young people to remain. If the Minister wishes to force more money out of the Treasury—I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman is engaged in that occupation very often—for providing proper married quarters, or more playing fields for Army sport, or any of the other reasons, by the acceptance of this Amendment he would be arming himself with a great weapon. He ought, therefore, to think seriously about it.
Although, in one sense, I may make the point light-heartedly, in another there is a serious aspect to it. It would be much better from every point of view, and for the reasons which have been advanced from this side of the Committee already, that the Army should have to prove itself to the young recruit, instead of using this extraordinary weapon of enforcing that a young man may have to make his decision before reaching the age of 21. For those reasons, in addition to the powerful reasons already advanced

about the legal and constitutional position of people under 21 in other respects, this Amendment is one which the Government ought to be prepared to consider seriously.
The biggest point is the constitutional fact that we say that in all other respects a line is drawn at 21, except when someone is to be hanged. We had a long debate about that recently. The Government are prepared to hang people at 18 or get them committed to a life in the Army at 18. They are the only two items which are put on the same basis. Much the most serious matter is the question of denying people the right to vote under the age of 18, but still say that they can make a choice of what life they are to lead for a large number of years. That situation is absolutely indefensible.
If the Government wish to proceed with the rejection of this Amendment, in common decency they should examine earnestly and seriously the proposal to give the vote at the age of 18. I cannot see any possible defence for the Government to insist on the present position and reject the Amendment, and to say, "We insist on a man's capability to decide at the age of 18 what he is going to do with a large part of the remainder of his life but we deny him the right to vote in the conduct of his country at that age." It is a ludricrous proposal.
If the Minister is determined to maintain the present position, I hope that he will go back to the Cabinet and say that he wants the logical step to be taken of serious consideration being given to the proposal for extending the right to vote at the age of 18. In his own interests he should consider seriously this Amendment and not reject it because it may be immediately inconvenient. He may well find that the future interests that he and the War Office have in mind would be better served by neglecting the immediate interest of trying to recruit people at this age and by studying seriously the fact that if only the Army had to prove itself to young people between the ages of 17½ and 21 conditions in the Army would be much better than they are at present.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for spelling out for me what would be the effect of the alteration of the Amendment to Clause 2. He spoke in terms of inserting the words "seventeen years and six months". He did this not only for my benefit but as a slight flanking movement to divert attention from a difficulty which has to be faced. The effect of his Amendment, although he does not set out to do it, would, if it is to make sense, amend Section 2 (5) of the 1955 Act which lays down that the minimum age for a man's service means the age of 17 years and 6 months, except that in such classes of cases as may be prescribed it means the age of 17 years.
The Regulations governing recruiting are not given in detail in the 1955 Act or in the Bill which we are now considering. They are contained in the prescribed Regulations. The effect of the Amendment if carried would put paid to the Regular Army. The proposal means that the Government in future would have to aim their recruiting drive at above the minimum age. The application of the existing Regulations would raise the point of entry into the Armed Forces to the age of 21.
I have never disguised my views upon the worthwhile nature of the Regular Army, nor on the necessity of National Service. I have always tried to make my position quite plain and to face the facts, but if we interfere with the manpower target at which the Government are aiming just at the moment when the situation is most difficult—I am referring to the age group between 18 and 21—the Army which we shall recruit will not be 165,000 or 120,000.

Mr. Paget: I do not quite follow this argument. The provision is that we can recruit only when they reach the age of 21 and they have the option to go out or to sign on for a long term. Is my hon. Friend saying that no one who is in the Army until he is 21 would stay if he knew what it was like and that therefore he is not worth recruiting?

Mr. Wigg: No, I am not saying that and my hon. and learned Friend knows I am not saying that. What I am saying is that by a back-door method the target has changed a little. He is seeking to amend, not Clause 2, but Section 2 (5) of the 1955 Act. That would be the effect, because the Amendment would alter the minimum age. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not undergo the discipline of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton of two-and-a-half years on the Select Committee.

Mr. S. Silverman: But I reached the same conclusion.

Mr. Wigg: It may be that that casts very great doubt on it, because he is doing this by a short-cut. My horn, and learned Friend is quite right in saying that we had to consider the situation of the National Service man liable to very considerable psychological effects. We were anxious to preserve the young man's rights and the good will of his family. We laid down that notice had to be given—and that is in prescribel form in the Regulations—whereby the parent is asked whether he wants to raise any objection or not.
My hon. and learned Friend was uncertain about the situation in the case of a young man who enlists under the prescribed age. The provision is that the recruiting officer shall not enlist a person under the minimum age for man's service unless the consent to the enlistment has been given in writing. In that case, if my hon. and learned Friend does what he wants to do, it would mean that every young man under 21 seeking to join the Army would do so after notice had been given to his parents that that is the effect.

Mr. Paget: Under the age of man's service—whether it be 17½ or, in some exceptional cases, 17—parental consent is required. Over the age of man's service, and under the age of 21, parental consent is required if he be a National Service man. Parental consent between the ages of man's service, either 17 or 17½, and 21, is not required if the recruit is not a National Service man. The effect of this Amendment does not alter any of that. It merely provides that the


man who is engaged at the age of man's service or over—that is, 17½ or, in exceptional cases, 17—may engage only for a term which will end on his 21st birthday, Having seen the Army until he is 21, he will then have the option to sign on for a long period or not. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, but that is the proposal. To say that it is simply not worth recruiting anybody under 21 if he has the option to leave at 21, I find a rather alarmist attitude.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. and learned Friend has not altogether followed the argument. So far so good; the effect will be to raise the minimum age to 21 and the young man who joins now at 17½ will in effect be entering a three-year engagement. We have had experience of this. We have all the hopes on the record and enough damage has been done. We introduced a three-year engagement and my hon. and learned Friend will remember the statements we had from the Government Front Bench. On what percentage did the Government base their plans for ever getting a Regular Army? We were told 33⅓ per cent. That was what the Government hoped to get under the three-year engagement. What did they get? Less than 5 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman has his way and introduces by minimum age for man's service what amounts to a three-year engagement by the backdoor method, he is letting his kind heart run away with his head.

Mr. Paget: The position of the three-year engagement when we had National Service was entirely different matter from the three-year engagement when we do not have National Service. We all know that the choice was three years with quite good pay or two years with extremely bad pay. People joined because they had to and had no intention of going on for more than three years. Here we are dealing with volunteers who join because they choose to serve and who serve not in the demoralising company of people who want to get out of the Army but in the good company of men who are in because they choose to be in. What was the unfortunate experience of the three-year engagement under National Service would not necessarily be the case now.

Mr. Wigg: Keeping up with my hon. and learned Friend on this matter is like running up an escalator. What he fails to notice is that the one step which the Government took successfully was the introduction of the differential. Young men faced with the desire to join the Army got a higher rate of pay for the longer engagement. The Government, by sharpening the differential, made the first successful move towards solving this particular recruiting problem. The hon. Gentleman wants to return to the three-year engagement and thus wants to shoot the propellers off the one thing the Government have done to give some hope of being successful. Clearly, that is not his intention.

Mr. S. Silverman: I had not, as my hon. Friend said, the advantage of sitting a long time on the Select Committee, but I have put my name to this Amendment and I do not want to be wrong about it. Would he tell me this? Suppose the Clause is not amended, is it the case that a man may join at the age of man's service, that is, under 18, may then serve in that capacity till the age of 18, and then, at the age of 18, have the option so that there is a period during which he has short service and then, at the age of 18, one of these different periods?

Mr. Paget: He does not get an option at 18.

Mr. Silverman: If there is a period, and then he reaches the age of 18 and certain consequences follow, why is it wrong to say that it shall occur not at 18 but at 21?

Mr. Wigg: It is a complicated business but I will do my best to answer. The first thing is this. If a boy—I am using the term in the Army sense—joins with his parent's consent on Regular engagement—

Mr. Silverman: Under 17?

Mr. Wigg: Under 17—the option is at 18. On the other hand, if my hon. Friend will look at Section 2 (5) of the 1955 Act he will see that
the expression 'minimum age for man's service' means the age of seventeen years and six months".
It means that he can enter into a Regular engagement at that age or, in a few limited cases prescribed by Regulations,


at 17, and can enter into a Regular engagement without adopting an option. I hope I have made that clear. One who joins as a boy and wants to join as a man can by virtue of subsection (5).
10.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) seems to think that if enough money was spent and if the hard-hearted Treasury was persuaded to supply all the cash necessary, Britain's recruiting problems would be solved overnight. My hon. Friend's argument appears to be that if sufficient money were available, conditions could be created to solve the problem. In answering that suggestion, I must enunciate "Wigg's Law," because I hold the view that the number of men at any given time who will enter the Armed Forces is constant. That number has very little to do with comfort or conditions.
This point can best be illustrated by looking at the proposals put forward by the Government before the last war, at the time of another recruiting problem. The Government took all the measures then that this Government are taking at the moment. There were increases in rations and pay, more walking-out passes were issued and uniforms were made more attractive—yet the recruiting problem stayed with us. That example can be paralleled in post-war circumstances. Since the last war, the Government have granted two pay increases since the general change of policy in 1957. Up went the recruiting figures—and down they came again a short while later; and now the Government are taking steps to increase recruiting again. I hope that they are successful. But, even if they are, can anyone say with any certainty that the figures will continue to increase? Of course not. The sequence of events I have described will be repeated.
While the advantages of increased pay, better conditions and all the other additives are important, I consider that we must approach this problem in a different way. We must recall to the young men of Britain a pride in their duties. "Duty" is perhaps an old-fashioned word, but we have forgotten its meaning. We must remind the young men of their obligation to their country. We must paint a picture for them; a picture of

the worth-while job they are doing for Britain. I believe that in the word "duty" lies the challenge which faces the Western world.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) and I went to Moscow some time ago. We went to see a regular Red Army unit and an officer, an extremely competent man who spoke perfect English, chatted with us about conditions in the Red Army and in the British Army. We explained to him our system of call-up. We told him how conscientious objectors were exempted, and he could not understand that. He said: "You mean to tell me that there are young men who do not do their national service?" We said "Yes." He then said: "But surely it is their duty."
Recently I saw some correspondence between a Russian officer and his wife. The officer had told his wife that he would not be home for New Year's Eve. The wife replied in a letter, "I understand. It is your duty."

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged for your indulgence, Mr. Arbuthnot. I have gone as far as I wanted to go on that point in order to illustrate my argument. The Committee would be well advised to look at these Amendments with great care. I have endeavoured to explain what I think the results would be. Certainly, there could be no short-term advantage. Indeed, in the short run, the result might be wholly disastrous and it might put paid to any prospect of returning in the foreseeable future to an Army of such a size as to make it viable.

Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise for detaining the Committee after what has been, for me, a long and complicated debate, but I took the responsibility of putting my name to certain Amendments and, although I defend them with diffidence, I must defend them. Although I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for his explanation, which has enabled me to understand some parts of the Bill as drafted which I had not understood before, I am still not convinced that the Amendments ought not to be passed.
As I understand the Bill, we are dealing not with a conscript, but with a volunteer, not with a boy in Army terminology, but with a man. By "a man" we mean, according to the definition to which my hon. Friend directed my attention, someone aged, in most cases, 17 years and 6 months and, in a limited class of cases, 17 years. In those two classes of case, what the Bill provides is that in the first case where the volunteer is 18 years of age, he shall by his enlistment be deciding his whole future for a substantial number of years, and that where he is not 18 but is 17 years and 6 months, or perhaps 17, he is still committing himself to a substantial period of service, not quite so onerous as at 18, but still onerous enough.
We are saying that that is wrong and that this is too young an age at which to make so far-reaching a decision.

Mr. Paget: If the man is under 18, he undertakes a more onerous term, because he engages himself for the twenty-two years plus the difference between his age and 18.

Mr. Silverman: Yes; I am obliged. I had better confine myself, however, to the main point that in either case the period to which he is committed is a much longer period, and it is a much graver decision than we should allow him to make at that age. We are not saying that we want to reduce the minimum age; and in spite of the explanations, I do not think that that is the effect. A man may still join at the age of 17, 17½, 18 or any age under 21. What we are saying is that there shall be this, as it were, probationary period before he is finally committed to such a long period as is contemplated, either in the one case or in the other case in the Bill as drafted.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments. They are overwhelming. It is an almost comic anomaly that we should allow people of this age to pay the full penalty of the law if they commit murder or to make a decision governing the better part of their mature lives at this age, whereas we do not permit them either to vote or to marry or to be held to their contracts or do anything else of any serious import before the age of 21.
I cannot see that all the disastrous consequences that my hon. Friends foresee would follow if the Amendment were

accepted. I can see no good reason why this group of Amendments should not be accepted. If the period between the age of enlistment and the age of 21 is adequately used by the Army, there can be no reasonable fear that the boy's ambitions and aptitudes which led him to join at 17½ or 18 will have been so radically changed that he will change his mind when he reaches the age of 21. If the period has been misused, it may be different—I do not know.
I think that there is a lot in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said about the encouragement this would give to the Army to make conditions of service so attractive that at the age of 21 the enlisted man would confirm the choice he had made. It is manifestly wrong to allow him to make so portentous a decision before that age.

Mr. Profumo: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for the speech he has made, because he has already enabled us to understand clearly an extremely abstruse and difficult problem. If one takes any of the Amendments or any of the Clauses without time for careful study one can make out a case which looks as if we are being unfair to those in the Army.
The effect of this group of Amendments would be to abolish the recruitment of apprentices and boys and provide for enlisitment from the minimum age of man's service up to 21. Only men over 21 could enlist on 22-year engagements. The 22-year engagement was introduced as a recruiting measure, and I want to make it plain at the outset that I do not regard twenty-two years as sacrosanct. What we are discussing is long-term engagement, which has always given the man who has signed on after 18 a pensionable engagement. The purpose of Clauses 2 and 7 is to enable men under 18 and over 17½ to sign on for an engagement which would enable them to complete twenty-two years for pension from their 18th birthday.
A great deal of play was made of the fact that we are advertising and in one way and another luring men into the Army when they are too young to vote or marry, and so forth. We are doing nothing of the sort. All our advertisements and our recruiting campaign is directed towards showing the advantages of serving Queen and country. I very


much agree with the hon. Member for Dudley about showing the advantages of service and duty.
I have already had some criticism about the films we are showing on television, to the effect that we make them too realistic and too frightening for some parents and girl friends. This is done on purpose to show the Army as the place it is. In fact, it is not our television or newspaper advertisements, or our pamphlets, that have the effect on young boys or adult recruits. What has the greatest effect is the information passed on from mouth to mouth about what life in the Army is like. The best recruiting sergeant is the recruit himself. We try to see that the people in the Army have conditions that make them say to their young friends that the Army is a worthwhile life.
11.0 p.m.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in a typical speech, gave the impression that these young men were taking on a formidable contract. Hon. Members opposite generally gave one to feel that these young chaps are lured into the spider's web, that they sign on for a very long time and that we have them in our clutches. It is true that they do this without parental consent and it is equally true that if a conscript, on National Service, wants to take on, he cannot do so without the permission of his parents. The parents have twenty-eight days in which they can object to what the boy has done. The theory is that we have them in the Army because of their national duty and that we brain-wash them, so to speak, and to some extent press-gang them into staying in the Army. The theory is that the parent must have twenty-eight days in which to refuse permission for the boy to be suborned by those of us already in the Army and that this state of affairs does not arise for the chap who decides, from civilian life, to join the Army, of his own free will.
It is wholly wrong to suggest that once a young man has decided to join he is there for life. He can buy himself out. I should be out of order in discussing in detail a later Amendment, but the point is that the chap has the same right as any voluntary recruit. If he feels that he has made a mistake he can buy himself out for £20, up to three months. He

is not bound to complete the full length of his long-term engagement. He can opt out at each three-yearly point, except for the first. He is not bound for twenty years. He has plenty of opportunity to decide again.
This is very important, and I put it in particular to hon. Members who have not previously agreed with the Clause: the man can join with the right to complete twenty-two years' service for pension and also with the right to leave earlier if he wishes. The Amendment would offer no advantage to the man; on the contrary, it would be to his disadvantage. He could not join on a pensionable engagement. In the Army, like outside industry, we are fishing in a limited manpower pool. The lure of industry is far greater than anything I can offer. Except for the opportunity of service to his country, I cannot offer such inducements in salaries, pensions and so on. The Army, like outside industry, must obtain its share of the youth of the country. It likes the boys and apprentices to provide the warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the future.
The hon. Member for Dudley was right; it would be immensely difficult for us to run the Army if recruits under 21 had the right to leave at 21. This Amendment would wreck the most carefully established arrangements, which have worked well for a long time, which have been brought under the scrutiny of the Select Committee, and which I believe to be vital to the future of the Army. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: I will speak only briefly, but the Amendment is on an important subject. Whether one agrees with it or not, one must recognise that this is an important issue, but we have been in difficulty in debating it because this has not been treated as a debate. Hon. Members opposite, when the Amendment was being moved, rumbled like traction engines in their places, obviously feeling very strongly on this issue, judging from their interruptions, made under their breath, yet they have made no attempt to put forward a point of view. The only two points of opposition which we have had to the Amendment have come from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Minister. As far as the


Minister is concerned, I think we all accept that he is in a special position. It is his Bill. It is a major point, and he will have to think about changing it. But if we are to go on dealing with these points, it is not unreasonable to expect hon. Members opposite, if they have a point of view, to state it. It is very difficult to carry on a debate on a series of Amendments when quite clearly—

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): What the hon. Member is saying is not relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: I accept your Ruling, Sir Gordon, that what I am saying is not relevant to the Amendment, but really if one cannot discuss the arguments for and against an Amendment it is really very difficult to deal with it. If we cannot discuss the lack of arguments against it, that also places us in a difficulty.
On the arguments that we have so far heard I still remain unconvinced. Indeed, I find it difficult to follow some of the arguments. As I understand it, it has been suggested several times by hon. Members, including the Minister, that this was not a lure to get a young man into the Forces and then to commit him for a long period of time—that it was easy for him to get out at the end of three years or in the first three months.
If that is the case, one finds it difficult to see why there should be such strong objection to a young man not signing on for a long period until he reaches the age of 21. All that we are proposing, in effect, is what is the present position, because he can get out in the first three years anyhow and after three months quite easily. All we are saying is that he shall not sign a contract until he is 21 years of age. That seems a fairly simple proposition, and I fail to see the argument against it.
On the other point, that what we propose would destroy the Army, that it would make it difficult to maintain the Army if it were easier for people to get out if they were committed for a period of less than twenty-two years, I find it difficult to follow the arguments. If there is no objection to these people committing themselves below the age of 21 for a period of twenty-two years, one would not have thought that conditions

existed which would make them want to get out of the Army in less than twenty-two years.
I must say that I find the argument put forward by the Minister most unconvincing, and the lack of argument from some of his colleagues appalling. I agree with the suggestion put forward by some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), that the method of keeping people in the Army must at some stage be a method of making the Army attractive to people to join it. We cannot put forward the argument that there is nothing exceptional about the present procedure and at the same time argue that without it people will not stay in the Army.
Patriotism and the call of duty are good reasons for joining the Army, but I should have thought that if the Army cannot imbue a degree of patriotism in a man who signs on for less than twenty-two years, in, say, twelve years, it will never do it. I should have thought that the Army would find it far easier to imbue a recruit with a sense of duty when he is in the Army than before he signs on.
I must confess that I listened carefully to the arguments. I can appreciate some of the technical points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, but one is left with the feeling that what is being said is that if it were easier for people to get out of the Army in something less than twenty-two years they would do so. If that is the position they should not be committed to such service before reaching the age of 21. This is a simple issue, but one about which I feel very strongly.

Mr. Mayhew: I do not wish to detain the Committee, as both sides of the argument have been stated, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), whose persistence in support of the Amendment we all admire, will not press the Amendment. The point he makes is, of course, a very important one—my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) also made it—that the Amendment would give the Army an inducement to encourage the young soldier to stay in the Service. That is a subject which I expect we shall be mentioning again in connection with other Clauses, especially when we come to deal with the purchase of discharge.
I hope, therefore, that we shall have the opportunity of impressing on the Minister


the enormous importance of learning how to acclimatise our young recruit during his first three months of service in the Army. There is some evidence that after our having been used to National Service men for a long time—men who could not leave even if they wanted to—there is a case for careful study of the techniques of acclimatisation now that the Army has to deal with volunteers and not National Service men. When my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich was making this point in favour of the Amendment, he was on strong ground, but I am sure that he will agree that we all want a strong, conventional volunteer force. If we are to have that, it seems to me that we cannot accept the Amendment.
I see no case for rejecting the boy recruit. If we take the Amendments as a group, by leaving out subsection (4) we shall remove the recruitment of boys from the Regular Army. I do not think that it is any part of our case on this side of the Committee that we want a smaller Army or that we want to stop boy recruiting. On the contrary, we are desperately worried by the fact that the whole emphasis of our defence at present is based on the assumption of the use of nuclear weapons and, over and over again, we have pointed out the danger of the fact that the organisation, training and deployment of our troops in Germany makes their possible use in a conventional war almost impossible. It is for these reasons that we want a strong conventional Army.
One of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was that this is a three-year engament, but is that so? I beg him to consider it further. It is a three-year engagement only for those who enlist at 18. It is a two-year engagement for those who enlist at 19 and a one-year engagement for those who enlist at 20. It does not make a great deal of sense. What is the point of a young man of 20 going in if the engagement is based on the fact that he has three months during which he can purchase his discharge and at the end of nine months he can leave, or, if it is a boy of 19, he again can leave at the end of a year and nine months? This is totally arbritrary and corresponds to no kind of conception or plan. It seems to me to be a non-starter.
11.15 p.m.
Above all there is a point which, to my surprise, the Secretary of State did not make. The Clause is necessary because it removes a ridiculous anomaly in the pensionability of certain engagements. It is such a complicated business that I am not sure that I can understand it, and if I did I am not sure that the Committee would be delighted if I offered an explanation. If a boy enlists at 17¼ years of age the engagement is pensioned as though he had been enlisted at 18, but if he enlists at 17¾ years his service is pensioned as though he was enlisted at that age of 17¾. That is the position and I am glad that the Under-Secretary appears to agree with me. He and I are all right now on this complicated question.
What does it mean? It means that if two young men of the same age stay in the Army for the same term, the one who joins six months later than the other will get a higher pension. It is ridiculous. It means that the longer service earns the lower pension, and the shorter service earns the higher pension.
That is a new principle in pension schemes. We have had some pretty poor ideas from the Government on pensions during this Parliament, and some of my constituents are asking questions about the graduated pension scheme which I doubt if the Minister could answer. I do not know whether we have ever had a Minister responsible for a pension scheme in which it was a case of the longer one's service the smaller one's pension, and the shorter one's service the bigger the pension.
The Amendment would rule out one good point of the Bill and perpetuate an anomaly which it is the purpose of the Clause to stop. At the moment a man who enlists under the age of 17½ is not pensionable. That means that if he is invalided out of the Army nothing can be done for him except to give him an ex gratia payment. This is ridiculous. How many people have been disqualified from receiving a pension because of this technicality? I agree that the Clause would remedy this, and that is why I support it, but how many cases have gone by on this? Have there been any cases of this kind where the Minister has not intervened and made an appropriate ex gratia payment or a payment under some warrant of Queen


Victoria's day? I should like to be assured that justice has always been done in these absurd cases arising from an anomaly in the law. Again, the Amendment would rule out this constructive part of the law.
We still have the ridiculous situation that when two men reach the end of their service having served the same time, one of them may have to serve for another six months, or, in certain cases, a year, to qualify for the same pension as the other man. That is ridiculous, and it will continue for many years. We are legislating to rectify the anomalies in respect of whose enlisted under the Army Act. Do not let us forget that people have been recruited under the Army Act, 1955, and under the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Act, 1957, and these absurdities about which I have been talking will apply to them for the twenty-two years of their engagement.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend will find that the anomalies to which he referred apply mainly to the Royal Air Force and only in a minor way to the Army. On the main issue the Army put its house in order a long time ago. In this Bill the Royal Air Force is seeking to put some of these things right. The Army is seeking to enable a man to get his engagement right at the beginning rather than at the end of his service. My hon. Friend is not right in his reference to a man who is medically unfit in the Army. If the man's disability is attributable to Army service, he gets his pension. If his disability is not attributable to Army service, he can qualify only provided he has re-engaged. Thus, a man qualifies for pension if he is serving on a pensionable engagement.

Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, in particular because this is one of the rare occasions when I am right and he is wrong. Perhaps I might quote from the Select Committee's Report. It says that as a result of the anomalies of which I have been speaking
a soldier who is invalided out of the Army can, if he has completed a minimum of 12 years' reckonable service, qualify for a pension provided he is serving on a pensionable engagement; a soldier enlisting between the ages of 17½ and 18 for 22 years does not therefore qualify on invaliding for a pension under the Army Pensions Warrant, and in such a case

a pension can only be awarded exceptionally with the concurrence of the Treasury, under the Warrant of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, dated 27th October, 1884.
I believe that on this occasion I am right and my hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend has quoted the phrase "on a pensionable engagement". That is when a man is re-engaged.

Mr. Mayhew: I shall have to sort that one out on some other occasion. It might take me a little far afield from what I had it in mind to talk about. But I must insist on the point I wanted to make originally—that as things are a man who enlists between the ages of 17½ and 18 for a period of twenty-two years is embarking on a non-pensionable engagement, and that means that in certain circumstances when he is invalided out he gets nothing, and special arrangements have to be made. I hope that they are made. The Under-Secretary has made a special study of this point, and understands it well, and I hope that he can assure me that in those circumstances, in practice, every such person in the past has received a pension under the warrant which I have described.
The second point which my hon. Friend put to me—and again I am glad to feel that it is one of the rare occasions when I am in the right—was that what I have been saying applies only to the Royal Air Force. I believe that it does apply to the Royal Air Force, but it certainly applies to the Army. That is the whole purpose of the Clause. It has no other. The only reason for the Clause is to enable us to spell out again the terms of enlistment in order to make this tiny point to cover the small anomaly which I have discovered. It is the Army and not the Air Force which is dealt with. Perhaps the Minister will agree with me and not with my hon. Friend on this occasion. For this reason, and others, I do not feel that we should support the Amendment.
The Minister went on to the question of recruitment, and I hope that when we debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we can ask him a few questions on it. This is a vital Clause, and we shall no doubt have an opportunity to consider some of these urgent and important questions then. In the meantime, I hope that my


hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and the Minister show the dilemma in which they are placed. My hon. Friend wants a strong voluntary Army, and the Minister has said that the Army has only a certain pool of young people upon whom to draw. I want to know why the Army should have priority over the teaching profession. There are not many young men in my constituency, and there is a great demand for teachers. Is it suggested by the Opposition Front Bench that we should cripple education?

The Chairman: I do not follow how this argument is linked with the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: Perhaps I have not made myself clear, Sir Gordon. We are here dealing with young men between 18 and 21. When I look at the young men in my constituency I feel that those are the ages between which we should recruit teachers, of whom we are desperately short. I should not advise a young man of 18 to enlist for a long-term engagement of twenty-two years. It would be more in keeping with the national interest that he should employ himself in education. Here is the dilemma which faces my hon. Friend. If we are to have a well-educated new generation, we must have more teachers. If the young men go into the Army, we shall not have the teachers. Take industry. We need a large number of young, skilled mechanics in industry. We need them in shipping—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister argues that, if he allowed the age to rise to 21, when they reached that age young men might decide not to join the Army after all. I believe that they have a perfect right to make that choice. If the future of the Army rests on deluding young men under the age of 21, the calibre of our Army of the future will be very poor indeed. We shall have people in the Army whom we cannot trust to remain in the Service because at 21 they will be "browned off" and "fed up."

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). Let us consider the experience of the National Service man. The Minister said that the best advertisement for the Army was a man with experience of serving in the Army; one who could say that it was a splendid institution, with plenty of sport and a varied life. But in practically every family in the country there is a member who has done his National Service and who found that the Army was nothing like that. And when a young man of 18 asks his elder brother whether he should join the Army, the reply he receives is, "Don't be a damned fool." That is the reality, and all the advertisement and propaganda cannot obviate the facts.
What percentage of National Service men are still in the Army? If there was a large percentage of them still in the Army and if the Army was so good, there would be no problem. But they know what the Army is like and how futile it would be to defend this country in the event of an atomic war. So we have this enlistment problem. The thinking of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is as obsolete as that of King Harold in this modern era. Understandably and justifiably the hon. Gentleman is thinking from the point of view of his generation. But now we have a generation which does not want to go into the Army, because the whole situation has changed. They realise the futility of a conventional Army. What nonsense to talk about a conventional Army using conventional weapons when the enemy is equipped with nuclear weapons.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend is not accurate in likening my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to King Harold. King Harold always kept British forces on British soil to defend British territory.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise to King Harold and, if necessary, Queen Boadicea too.

Mr. Wigg: I am prepared to be out of date in such good company. Last evening I looked at the television and I saw the parade in Red Square. What struck me was the absolutely superb quality of the troops engaged in the parade. The argument which commends itself to me, and which might even commend itself to


my hon. Friend, is that if the Soviet Union think it worth their while to have regular troops of that quality I should have thought it was an argument which at least we should bear in mind. If I am likened to King Harold or to Queen Boadicea I consider that I am in very good company.

Mr. Hughes: I am not one who thinks that because there is a parade in Red Square of hundreds of thousands of troops it is necessary to have a big Army in this country. It raises the whole question of what the Army is for. In Russia they have got conscription, and I object to conscription. I do not like the Russian military organisation—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The Russian military service is not covered by this Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I am sure that the problems of the Minister would be far greater if any part of the budget of the Russian Army in Red Square had to be borne on his Estimate. All I say is that because the Russians have a certain military organisation there is no justification for us trying to imitate them. We cannot compete with the Russians in their scientific education, and we cannot have scientific education in this country if we put 200,000 young men into the Army—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must understand that he is out of order.

Mr. Hughes: My peroration is now over, Mr. Thomas.

The Temporary Chairman: That saves a point of order then.

Mr. Paget: I have found the discussion on what seemed to me to be a very serious subject eminently disappointing. I should have thought it was clear beyond any question that to sign up into the Army young men whom we do not allow to be signed up for any other purpose—even marriage—at the age of minority was something which was less than justice to them. That practice can only be justified by our necessity. It was that dilemma which I had hoped to see taken seriously by hon. Members

opposite, in fact, one hon. Member gallantly tried on two occasions to rise to speak. Once the Minister got up and defeated him, and on the other occasion he was "shooed" down. Therefore, we have not had the debate which I feel a question of this seriousness deserves.
I equally felt that the Minister's answer was very unsatisfactory because, in all conscience, he cannot have it both ways. He cannot tell us, on the one hand, that this privilege of being able to change one's mind at 21 is worthless to the recruit and, on the other hand, that it is one which, if it were available, would be exercised so largely that we should not have an Army at all. Between those two, he has got to decide which leg he is standing on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) decided on which leg he was standing. He made it clear that from his experience he did not think we should get an Army if, as he described it, we went back to the three-year engagement without conscription. I think that was also the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). It is one which convinces me because I feel that at this critical point in our recruiting—even though it is admittedly unjust and it is hypocritical to pretend that it is not—none the less, unjust though it be, we cannot for larger reasons take the risk with our numbers at this point. Therefore, reluctantly, I should be unable to support the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Could the Minister let us know what his plans are for the rest of the night? I notice a certain amount of evidence of fatigue on the benches opposite. On this side of the Committee we are as fresh as ever although most of the important discussion has been concentrated on these benches. If the Minister feels that he would like to attack further parts of the Bill afresh on another day, I do not think we on this side would have any objection. He could take the opportunity of letting us know what is in his mind about the programme for the rest of the evening.

Mr. Profumo: I am surprised at the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). It had not occurred to me. We are making good progress as a Committee and those who want to talk are talking. That is what the Committee stage is meant for. I have not yet had my dinner and I regard it as early in the evening. I hope that we shall make progress. It looks as if now we shall not have quite such controversial matters to discuss. I hope that we shall press on with a will and carry on straight through the night.

Mr. Mayhew: The Minister speaks for himself. Other hon. Members have had their dinner. If he feels that he can encourage hon. Members who give the impression of fatigue to carry on longer, I am sure that we are willing.

Mr. Paget: I applaud what the right hon. Gentleman says and his willingness to keep on with this business, but the trouble is that we are not getting on with the business. We are not getting a debate. We cannot say that we are making extremely good progress when any hon. Member opposite who tries to take part is promptly sat on. The noise of indignation which runs along the Government Front Bench from the Patronage Secretary at the sign of any hon. Member opposite wishing to take part in the debate seems to be reducing the process to something of a farce.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to make up his mind where he stands. If the Government are indifferent about the time and he wishes to debate this Bill through the night, good luck to him. We are delighted to oblige, but let us at least be clear. Do not let us go on with this process of what he describes as allowing people who want to talk to talk but paying no attention and not giving them the credit of a reply which in any way seeks to meet the argument, or preventing anyone else from providing that reply either. After all, we have had quite a long debate on a very important matter in the last Clause, the rights of minors, but with not a speech from that side, and the reply from the Secretary of State really did not attempt to grapple with the arguments. On this side there was a division, and we had speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich

(Mr. Marsh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who really tried to argue, but nobody on that side, not even the Secretary of State, went through the motions of trying to argue. If we are to get on, please let us go on seriously and not upon that basis, of just sitting down with closed ears on an important question.

Mr. Marsh: I should have thought my hon. Friend's Motion wise at this stage. Of course, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they must have this Bill tonight, obviously it is worth while going on discussing it. We have discussed fourteen Amendments—not frivolous Amendments; indeed, so important are they that the Government accepted three Opposition Amendments to their own legislation. That was wise and commendable of the Government. If they accepted more Opposition Amendments the Government would be better for it. Yet throughout this discussion on fourteen Amendments only one hon. Member opposite, I think it is true to say, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), has made a speech. Other hon. Gentlemen opposite sat with grim faces and then went to sleep. It may be a coincidence, but since then there has not been a peep from the hon. Member for Tiverton. He has vanished from the scene. What has happened to him I should not like to say.

Mr. Mayhew: Gone into space.

Mr. Marsh: There was another hon. Member opposite, the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), who made a couple of interjections, and he also was greeted with particularly unpleasant and un-comradely looks from his own Front Bench and since then he also has vanished.
There is a lot of this Bill and it is not unimportant to discuss it properly with contributions from both sides of the Committee in a debating manner. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I have not been a Member long, but I came here supposing that it was the purpose in this Chamber to discuss legislation.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: To pass the Bill.

Mr. Marsh: I think that is very serious. If hon. Members opposite are not interested in the debate on the Bill there is little purpose in our sitting here much longer. We on this side are prepared to debate the Bill and any facet of it, but we are informed by hon. Members opposite that they are not prepared to debate it. They are not interested in the arguments for or against any Amendment. They are like obedient sheep waiting to go into the right Lobby when they are told to do so. That is not debate. There is not much point in trying to continue the debate in such a manner. It may be that hon. Members opposite are tired and do not feel up to going on with the Bill and the debate with the full range of their critical faculties. If that is so they may as well go home to sleep.
11.45 p.m.
The position is that we have almost reached midnight and have been informed that the rest of the night will be spent by hon. Members on this side of the Committee putting forward Amendments, which will be replied to, I admit, very properly and courteously by the Minister, but with no comment from hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee. This would, therefore, seem a good stage at which to adjourn our debate, enabling hon. Gentlemen opposite to go home to sleep, which is the right place for them to sleep. We could then resume when hon. Gentlemen opposite have been refreshed.
It is a tragedy that we should debate a Bill of this size and importance, affecting many people in many ways, without giving it the benefit of the sort of debate we should expect to have on a much less important issue. It seems pointless to continue this debate if the Patronage Secretary and his colleagues have decided that it shall be confined, as far as they are concerned, to speeches from this side of the Committee, and that their flock—and that is a good description of hon. Gentlemen opposite—are not to be permitted to take part. Obviously, there is no point in our continuing, for this is a Measure that should not be dealt with as a formality. Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite have some views about something.

Mr. George Brown: That is going a bit far.

Mr. Marsh: Perhaps, but one must have charity. Either we have a proper debate now—and that means hon. Members on both sides of the Committee taking part—or we should go home and continue on another occasion.

Mr. Hale: At the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) rose to make a reasonable inquiry as to the progress of business, and to put forward by way of a Motion the suggestion that we should report Progress, and at the time the Minister frivolously replied to that inquiry, we were discussing a Bill affecting the defence of the country and the lives and future of 200,000 young men, most of whom have no right to vote or to express their own opinions.
We had been discussing the Bill in a Committee which did not even contain a quorum, and it would have been open to any hon. Member to call a count. Despite all those facts, the Minister is proposing to pursue the discussion of this important matter at such an hour, in such conditions, without any regard to the necessities of democracy, to the rights of the Committee, or to its duty to the nation to inquire into these matters of grave importance affecting the lives of our constituents.
The Minister proposes, callously and regardless of circumstances, to pursue this matter for some hours into the morning, merely in order to secure a Clause in this Measure, without a word of support from his supporters. That is the way Her Majesty's present officers propose to proceed with legislation that will affect so many of Her Majesty's subjects.

Mr. Cronin: The Secretary of State has maintained a very idiosyncratic position by rejecting this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that he had not yet dined, but no doubt he leads a social life as a result of which he dines in the small hours, and his activities continue after that.

Mr. G. Brown: What kind of activities?

Mr. Cronin: Perhaps we had better not go into that.
I urge the Secretary of State to realise that the majority of hon. Members lead


simple lives and usually wish to be in their beds before midnight.
That brings me to the important question that this is an extremely complex Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) shows great familiarity with the Bill, but those of us who have not had the massive legal training of, say, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), find this an intense mental gymnastic. It is not a gymnastic which should be performed at this hour of the evening.
Certain things have arisen in the course of the Bill that show that there is much more in it than was originally considered by the Select Committee and by my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite. It is most unsuitable, therefore, that we should attempt to force our tired minds to cope with this complex Bill at this late hour. We should also bear in mind the extreme importance of the Bill to the half-million officers, N.C.O.s, airmen and soldiers who are affected by it. What would they think if they realised that these matters, which affect their careers, their future, their discipline and their terms of service, were being debated in this extremely jaded atmosphere at this late hour?
I suggest that the Secretary of State should reconsider the matter and let us return to consider the Bill at some time when we are much fresher. I ask him to look around at his hon. Friends on his side of the Committee. He may be misled by the fresh and enthusiastic appearance of hon. Members on this side, but if he looks around at his own side he will see that there are considerable elements of fatigue and lassitude. For that reason alone, he would be doing his hon. Friends more justice if he arranged to carry over the Committee stage to a further evening.

Mr. John Morris: In supporting the Motion at this very late hour, I will make only a brief speech. I am sure that you will pardon me on this occasion, Mr. Thomas, if my speech is not a long one. Before I go on to make the short point, however, I should declare my interest. As will be seen from the Order Paper, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 1 (6), I propose, possibly

tomorrow morning, at some convenient hour, to raise the subject of the grant for Welsh books. While at this juncture I do not propose to go into the merits of the speech I intend to make at a later stage—because, I am sure, that would be out of order—in fairness to the Committee I should declare my interest at this stage.
With whatever weight I can command, I support the Motion, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). In addition to my not unimportant debate at the end of business, there are other Motions in between. I am not going into them in detail, but I am sure that our colleagues from Scotland will want to discuss at some length the Scottish business which will come before the House at a later stage. In addition, there are agricultural matters—

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morris: I am very interested in these matters, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). Two Orders of great importance are to come before the House. In addition to these matters there is a long list of Amendments, and as one who took part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill I feel that this is not the hour at which to discuss these highly complex matters in a tired House that is now slowly but surely filling up.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has made the point that he has the Motion for the Adjournment, upon which he wishes to discuss Welsh books. It would be helpful to some of us, in weighing up the facts for and against continuing this debate, if he would say a word or two about the subject so that we could assess its seriousness.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not be led up that particular path.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Surely it is in order on this Question for my hon. Friend to give reasons why the debate on the question of Welsh books should not be delayed until the early hours?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must leave me to decide what


reasons are in order. As long as I am in the Chair I must decide what is in order.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Surely when we are debating whether to continue, the question of what we are to do with the Motion for the Adjournment is something we clearly have to consider?

The Temporary Charman: Order. The hon. and learned Member is now trying to discuss the Ruling I gave. I must ask him to allow his hon. Friend to pursue his argument and we will see how we get along.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Thomas, surely it is in order to discuss a Ruling, particularly as to relevance, when the point is raised by the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: It is not in order to discuss a Ruling. If the hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with it he knows the Parliamentary ways of dealing with it. It is not in order to debate it.

Mr. Paget: Surely the question of taking further action if one disagrees with a Ruling would be highly improper unless one had first given the reasons to the Chair, and given the Chair the opportunity to deal with those reasons.

The Temporary Chairman: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I do not propose that we shall have a debate on the Ruling I have given. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to know how far it is possible to deal with the question of Welsh books on the Question before the Committee now.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman will allow the hon. Member for Port Talbot [Interruption] or rather Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—it is the same place—to speak, he will find how far he can go. As long as the hon. Member for Aberavon is in order he will be allowed to continue.

Mr. Morris: I am very grateful for your protection, Mr. Thomas. If I may say so without questioning your Ruling, you have given my constituency an alias, and have suggested that the constituency

of Aberavon is the same as Port Talbot. But if hon. Members were to come down to Aberavon they would discover that they are two different places.

The Temporary Chairman: I am very sorry that I led the hon. Gentleman into this path. Perhaps he would now return to the Motion.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to you for bringing me back on to the path from which you led me astray.
12 m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich attempted to lead me astray into a discussion of Welsh books, but I will not follow his invitation. Not only have I the Adjournment debate, but I wish to take part in the debates on the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 508) and the Livestock Rearing Land Improvement Grants (Increase of Aggregate Maximum) Order, 1961, which are on the Order Paper. The clock has just struck midnight; you heard it, Mr. Thomas, as I heard it. The House is getting slightly thinner and hon. Members are beginning to move away. I suggest that this is not the time to embark on a long discussion, which may well go on all through the night, on a whole series of Amendments to a very important Bill. As an ex-National Service man, who did his National Service only a few years ago, I regard this as a very important Bill and I feel that a more appropriate time should be found to discuss it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was intrigued by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). In addition to being interested in about thirty-four Amendments to this Bill, I am also interested that the House should give adequate time and attention to the subject of Welsh books, because I realise that in the Principality there is a deep interest in Welsh books and my hon. Friend's Adjournment.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member knows that whatever time the Adjournment is reached, the Adjournment debate is of the same length.

Mr. Morris: It may be the same length, but the crucial question is, when will it start?

Mr. Hughes: This is Tuesday.

Mr. Hale: Wednesday.

Mr. Hughes: Many Welsh weekly papers are published in the Welsh language at the week-end. This is a question affecting Welsh literature and culture which could be dealt with in the vernacular in the local papers in Wales. These papers go to press at a certain time, and if the debate does not take place at a suitable hour this question of Welsh books and literature will not be published in Aberavon this week. By the time it has been translated into Welsh it will not be possible to publish it at all in North Wales. In any event, the publication will be delayed for a further week. By that time such questions may cease to be topical. This question of Welsh books will then not receive the attention which it deserves.
I do not now represent a Welsh constituency, but had I been representing Aberavon, Merthyr Tydvil, Aberdare, Caerphilly or Cardiff, East or Cardiff, West I should have been most annoyed at the action of the Patronage Secretary and the Government Front Bench in trying to relegate an important part of the Parliamentary agenda, this whole question of Welsh books which naturally affects the people of Wales so intimately, to a much later hour.
Then there is the fact that I should like to be fresh to discuss the question of Welsh books. I want to know what Welsh books the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

The Temporary Chairman: That cannot possibly have anything to do with the Question before us.

Mr. Hughes: I am very grieved, Mr. Thomas, to hear you say that, and I am quite sure that my grief will be shared by people who live in Caernarvonshire, in Cardiganshire, in Pembrokeshire and in Montgomeryshire.
I also want to ask the Secretary of State for War why he is doing such scant justice to Scotland. He must have noticed the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who are also anxious about items on the Notice Paper dealing with matters that vitally affect the people of Scotland. Both Welsh and Scottish Members have a right to protest very strongly when matters in which they

are vitally interested are pushed aside in this manner and have to be debated in the early hours of the morning when they will not receive the attention in the public Press that they deserve.
Welsh matters will not be adequately reported in the Western Mail and Scottish matters will not be reported in tomorrow's Scotsman, so I think that we are entitled to protest to the Secretary of State for War. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to do this intentionally. His mind is so full at the moment with the importance of the Army and Air Force Bill that he has forgotten. He thinks that these are relatively minor matters. But they interest certain sections of the people of this country. I am certain that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that these are matters which deserve to be treated with greater consideration by the Government Front Bench.
I now turn to some of the Amendments on the Notice Paper. I suggest that in the course of the debate we on these benches have been doing our duty by making constructive suggestions to the Minister and that it has been a very good debate indeed. It is one which has been comparatively well attended for a Service debate. Those of us who are used to seeing half a dozen Members on both sides of the Committee in these debates were agreeably surprised to see such a large number of hon. and gallant Members opposite, who, even if they are unable to make their speeches, have shown by their presence that they are vitally interested in the Army and Air Force Bill.
I know, for example, that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer), to whose speeches I have listened with great interest over a large number of years, has considered it his patriotic duty to be present and ready on occasion to give us the benefit of his advice, but, unfortunately, he has been suppressed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I submit that there has been no time wasting in the debate. The very fact that for the first two hours of it we were stressing points which ultimately were considered as very reasonable by the Minister proves this. I just want to point this out to the Leader of the House who. I am glad to see, has


joined us. As an old Parliamentarian he will realise that when a Minister accepts two Government Amendments after strenuously opposing them for two or three hours it is obvious that those who have been wasting the time of the Committee have not been members of the Opposition, whose constructive proposals were accepted, but the Minister himself. It is unfair that the Opposition and the Committee should be treated unceremoniously in this way and with scant consideration because the Minister failed to realise that by accepting the Amendments he would have enabled us to go forward with the Bill.
I press upon the Leader of the House that this is an important Bill which affects the country's defence and the whole organisation of the Army and Air Force. It involves not only terms of service but, inevitably, expenditure as well. We have already had examples earlier in the Session of matters involving huge expenditure being hurried through with scant consideration. I want the Bill to receive far greater attention from the Committee than we gave to the Army and Air Force Estimates. We have only a limited opportunity to deal with the organisation of the Army and the Air Force in the procedural arrangement of the House of Commons. We know that many hon. Members wanted to raise questions which could have been disposed of effectively at the time and would not have needed to be raised on this Bill if we had had the opportunity of discussing them on the Estimates. It is because we have not been able to discuss them on the Estimates and because we are thinking of future Estimates that we wish to have these matters discussed in a way which would be worthy of the House of Commons.
The Bill also vitally affects a very large number of young people. If the recruiting figures do not turn out as the Government prophesy it will mean that we shall be faced inevitably with some demands for a revival of National Service. That affects a large number of young people who are anxious to know what the Government intend to do. These debates on recruitment and enlistment are being watched by large numbers of people who have read ominous announcements that this organisation will not succeed in attracting

enough recruits. The careers of these people will depend upon the future organisation of the Army and Air Force as affected by this Bill.
I submit, therefore, that this is an important matter to a large section of the population who axe entitled to demand that the House of Commons pays the greatest possible attention to these grave problems when the House or the Committee is not tired and is not anxious to adjourn. The Bill deserves the greatest attention that we can possibly give it when the Committee is not in its present mood. I believe that there are about fifty Amendments on the Order Paper. Hon. Members may ask why there are so many. It is because we think that the Bill is important and because some of the matters with which it is concerned will not be discussed again for five years.
12.15 a.m.
The Government have got Clause 1, and we have disposed of about eight Amendments. It is impossible for us to deal with the remaining forty-two Amendments without rushing them through in a way which will not give the Committee the opportunity to give them serious and detailed consideration.
I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were vitally interested in the Army. The question of solving the almost insuperable problem of how we can get the Army which the Government require by these methods is one which deserves serious consideration.
The Government's dilemma is that they have abandoned National Service and they now realise that—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member more than I am bound to, but he is arguing the merits of the Bill rather than arguing whether we should continue the debate.

Mr. Hughes: I am only mentioning the horizon which we can see. I am pointing out the country which has to be surveyed because I do not think that the Government have realised that this is a complex, important Bill which vitally affects our future defence strategy. These considerations have been brushed aside. The Government should accept the Motion so that we can return to the Bill


in a constructive spirit and in the mood which is essential when a Measure of this kind is being considered.

Mr. Wigg: The Committee has been sitting for many hours, and we have not made as much progress as we would have liked. The importance of the Bill may not be realised until a flaw of some magnitude is discovered. We are legislating for five years, and I am sure that if the Government go on for too long and the Committee gets tired and loses interest the possibility of making mistakes will be greatly increased.
Some of the matters we have to discuss are of some complexity and importance. I know that the Government must be anxious to get the Measure through and are disappointed that we have not done it in one Sitting, but I ask them not to drive us too hard. If they accept the Motion and agree to discuss the Bill further at some later date, that will not only facilitate the business of the House but it will maintain the quality of our work. It is in the interests of the Army that we should make sure that we are able to examine the Bill in detail.

Mr. William Ross: I have not so far participated in the debate, so I do not suppose that anyone could blame me for holding up the business of the Committee today.
Anyone who has any knowledge of the history of the Army Acts over the past ten years should not be surprised by the number of Amendments or by the critical attention which my hon. Friends have paid to the Bill.
What surprises me—and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider this—is the way in which, in relation to the progress of the Bill, the matter has been handled by the Secretary of State. He is the last person who should complain about the lack of progress. I sat in the Committee for a long time today and heard a discussion relating to one Amendment, and after a long silence, with no effort to speak on the part of the Secretary of State, he eventually rose and accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: After two hours.

Mr. Ross: It was over two hours, during which we had a filibustering silence from the Secretary of State. I do not

know whether hon. Members opposite appreciate it, but, generally speaking, when the Government are anxious to get business through they do not waste very much time in rising to say that they are willing to accept an Amendment. From that point of view, the Secretary of State has every reason to explain to the Leader of the House why he allowed so much time to pass before saying that he would accept the Amendment.

Mr. Cronin: We should be just to the Secretary of State. In the debate to which my hon. Friend has referred he did say that he was muddled by the whole business. It may be that it required two-and-a-half hours for him to understand what was going on.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that before the Minister arrives here he has discussions with his advisers as to what attitude he should adopt in relation to the Amendments to be moved.

Mr. Paget: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of what happened in relation to the second Amendment. The Minister rose very punctually during that debate to say that he could not accept it, but after another hour he rose again to say that he had changed his mind in view of the arguments adduced, and would accept it.

Mr. Ross: I would not complain about that, but he had obviously made up his mind to accept the first Amendment, and he was responsible for our wasting a lot of time in fruitless debate when we would have been satisfied with his ready and speedy acceptance. There is no doubt about the importance of this debate, in view of the fact that it will be five years before we shall have another opportunity to discuss the Bill. I hope that the Leader of the House will appreciate that it would be unwise to expect to get this Measure through quickly.
I am concerned with the Scottish business that follows this. There is a fairly small and not very controversial Bill which was handled with care and without any sort of muddle or controversy in the Scottish Standing Committee, and which is awaiting attention after we have finished this debate. As a Scottish Member I want to complain that this sort of thing happens too often. We are left in the position of having to wait until


the middle of the night before we can start considering Scottish business. The Scottish Standing Committee met this morning at half-past ten—over fourteen hours ago—and it is asking a bit much to put Scottish business down in this way. We should receive a little more consideration from the Leader of the House.
Following the Scottish business there are two affirmative Orders. That is Government business, which the Government must pass in this way through the House. One relates to a little matter of about £27 million, or at least increasing the grants in relation to guarantees from £25 million to £27 million. This applies equally to Scotland, and presumably will be handled by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whose concern is agriculture. It was he who spent two-and-a-half hours this morning dealing with the problems of the Crofters Commission under the new Crofters (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee. I think that from this point of view the Leader of the House ought to consider the state of business and the fact that this is not the right way to deal with an important matter. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Motion.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has made an appeal on the subject of the later business, and I think that it would be reasonable for me to say that our chief objective is to make further progress and obtain the further stages of this Bill as set down on the Order Paper, together with the Amendments. But I think that it would be reasonable to say to those hon. Members who are waiting for the Scottish business, that we shall not insist on obtaining that tonight. I hope that that will be accepted by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock in the spirit in which I have said it. I think that the Order should be included. If hon. Members are waiting I think that it would be unreasonable to ask them to wait further.
I have been in and out of the Chamber from time to time. I have not been present for the whole of the debate because there are other duties to perform, but I have tried to follow the sense of

the debate and certainly there has been no bad spirit in the debate. I do not want to introduce any deterioration in the spirit in which we have been considering this Bill. It is an important Bill which has been considered by a Select Committee, and there is a comparatively small but energetic, faithful and experienced band of hon. Members opposite who are pursuing the various Amendments with assiduity and with some knowledge.
I was moved by the intervention of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who has had a life-long experience of this subject. At the same time, I must tell the hon. Member and the Committee that it is our intention to make further progress. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that he wants the Bill considered with full attention, and that it must be considered with full attention because it may well last for another five years. The obvious course for the hon. Member is not to proceed with this Motion which is a dilatory Motion, and prevents further progress being made. I think the reasonable thing would be to withdraw it and then to make further progress with the Bill on the understanding that I shall not insist that the other Orders shall be taken at this late hour. I hope that that will be regarded as reasonable in view of the spirit in which the Bill has been approached, and I should like to appeal to hon. Members to address themselves to this matter.

Mr. G. Brown: I am afraid that that is not regarded as reasonable at all. I do not quite understand the Leader of the House. This is a Bill of tremendous importance and the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to address himself to the issue at all. The other business is clearly out of the way. That he cannot get, and he is making no concession by saying that he will not insist on it. The issue is this Bill. At half-past twelve in the morning the right hon. Gentleman asks the Committee to go on when he says that there has been nothing wrong with the spirit of the debate and nothing wrong with the issues that my hon. Friends have raised. He says that he must insist that we make further progress. I gather that by "further progress" the right hon. Gentleman means that the Government want to get the Bill.


That seems absolutely unreasonable and impossible.
A lot of people will be affected by this Bill and we ought to discuss it during the day-time when hon. Members are fully au fait with the issue. It has already been pointed out by my hon. Friends that this is a new situation, that the Secretary of State is now holding up his own Bill by sitting there and not saying a word. Then he adopts an Amendment which he could have adopted before. We are now at the end of Clause 2. We have a number of Clauses to come—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? We are not near the end of Clause 2.

Mr. Brown: I understood that we were on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but I now gather that we are not even there yet. This makes my position very much stronger. How can the Leader of the House come here with a Bill which has a large number of Clauses—I have at the moment counted up to Clause 28 and several of my hon. Friends have got ahead of me—and when at half-past twelve we have not, I gather, yet reached the Motion "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill"—

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I have done a rough calculation to see what the position is. There are something like fifty Amendments on the Order Paper. We have so far dealt with fourteen of them, and they have occupied us till now. If we continue, and the Leader of the House is determined to get this Bill in this sitting, it will take us till 7 o'clock on Thursday morning, if we do nothing else, which I suggest is unreasonable.

Mr. Brown: I think it is unreasonable, but my hon. Friends and I are quite prepared to do it if the Government insist. However, it is unreasonable, and it will strain the Government supporters. The Secretary of State makes no complaint. This is something that we do only once every now and again. We do not do it every year. When we changed the procedure it must have been in everybody's mind that when the Measure came up for renewal it would be given rather special thought. We used to do this every year. Now we do it every several

years. The Committee ought not to have inflicted upon it the necessity to do this in the early hours of the morning. I assure the Leader of the House that there are enough of us here to keep this debate going, if he wants to keep it going and if he wants to make us resist and make him understand that we cannot deal with the Bill in this way. It does not seem to me that this is a good atmosphere in which to deal with the renewal of this very important Bill.
I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The Patronage Secretary is not here, so the right hon. Gentleman is in full command of the Committee at the moment. I ask him, in the atmosphere of complete freedom for the moment, to look at this matter sensibly. We have done as much as seems reasonable to everybody who has played a part in this debate. It is now getting on to one o'clock in the morning. We are getting towards the end of Clause 2. Will he not be sensible at this stage and say that this is enough for the day?
If we get to the next Clause, Clause 3, we get to a very important Clause. Things that are important are often complicated, and things that are complicated are often not unimportant. Clause 3 changes the conditions of service after long-term enlistment in the Regular Forces. One of the things that I, as an amateur in all these matters, understand is that one of the problems, if the right hon. Gentleman is to reach his target, is the change that affects men who, having enlisted for a long time, do not in fact want to carry out their engagement.
On Clause 3 alone we are certain to have a very long discussion. On this side of the Committee there are many hon. Members, some still sitting here and others having a little refreshment, who know a great deal about this matter. They wish that, as this is the only opportunity of our doing it, the opportunity should be taken to try to bring home to the Government, as we have already done, the changes which ought to be made. I ask the Leader of the House, who is a very much older hand at this kind of thing than I am, to agree that when we have this opportunity only once every five years we should be able to do it at a time which accords with our dignity and with the requirements of the Services. The


Leader of the House, coming here after midnight and insisting that we go on with this business, is not doing the job as he would like to do it.
I ask him to think again. If we finished with this Clause, I should have thought that we would have done very well in the light of what has happened this afternoon. We could come back to do this work on some other day in a different mood and could see how we got along. If we try to do it now, while we must do our duty and examine the Bill closely and carefully—and that we shall do—I doubt whether we shall do it as well as it ought to be done. It may be that we shall take rather longer than normally would be required, but it will have to be done if the Leader of the House insists, because he commands rather more noses than we do. If he wants to rely on that, let him do so, but I should not have thought that a very good thing.

He will not be there next time this Measure comes before us. He will then be speaking from this side of the Committee. Anything we say this time he will be able to say next time. I should have thought that I was making him—not him, but his successor—a very considerable hostage which he should take in the name of his successors. If he drives us on we shall go on, but that does not seem a good thing to do. He caw address us again, as we are in Committee. Knowing him, knowing the Bill and how seldom we have a chance to discuss this matter, I suggest that there is a great deal to be said at twenty minutes to one in the morning for the proposal that we might go on until one o'clock and finish this Clause, and that perhaps would be enough.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 123.

Division No. 154.]
AYES
[12.38 a.m.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Marsh, Richard
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, Christopher
Wigg, George


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Millan, Bruce



Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackie, John

Mr. Paget and Mr. John Cronin.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Allason, James
Gardner, Edward
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Atkins, Humphrey
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhart, Philip
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Goodhew, Victor
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bidgood, John C.
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Bingham, R. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Pitman, I. J.


Bossom, Clive
Green, Alan
Pott, Percivall


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Box, Donald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Bryan, Paul
Hendry, Forbes
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, James


Bullard, Denys
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Peter


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hopkins, Alan
Rees, Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Roots, William


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes-Young, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Cole, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony
Smithers, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kirk, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cordle, John
Langford-Holt, J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Curran, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Currie, G. B. H.
McLaren, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Deedes, W. F.
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


du Cann, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David


Finlay, Graeme
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Stratton
Ward, Dame Irene




Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. David Gibson-Watt and


Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Mr. Gordon Campbell.

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): In calling the next Amendment in page 2, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a), I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time, the Amendments in line 12, after "a" to insert "long"; in line 22, after "a" to insert "long", and in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to second "the" in line 6.

Mr. Marsh: On a point of order, Sir William. In seeking your guidance, I must point out that the Amendment to leave out paragraph (a) bears no relationship to any of the other Amendments to which you have referred. It will, therefore, be rather difficult for hon. Members to debate, at the same time, an issue of some considerable point of principle, and, in the other case, a series of drafting or exploratory Amendments. Perhaps, Sir William, we could take the Amendment to leave out paragraph (a) separately, and then proceed with the other Amendments, since that one is in no way related to the others.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Sir William. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has said. The first Amendment is designed to remove the 22-year engagement and to place everyone on the 12-year engagement. The other three Amendments go together and have an entirely different purpose.
Subsection (2) of Section 5 states in the first six lines:
References (however expressed) in the four next following sections to a person's enlisting or having enlisted on a long-term enlistment shall be construed as referring to his enlisting or, as the case may be, having enlisted for such a term as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section or paragraph (a) of subsection (3) thereof; and…
The object of the Amendment is to avoid taking six lines to say what has already been called a long engagement and to call it a long engagement in the first place, thus taking two lines to do the work of six. That is a drafting Amendment to improve the construction of the Bill, but it has nothing to do with my hon. Friend's other Amendments which go to the substance.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee do not agree to take the Amendments together, they will not be taken together. The first Amendment will be called, but I am not prepared to say that I will select the next three Amendments. I do not think that they justify being selected on their own. Mr. Emrys Hughes.

Mr. G. Brown: If you are prepared, Sir William, to call certain Amendments together, you must, I should have thought, have decided that each of those Amendments justifies being called.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. In fact, only one Amendment can be called. What I had put to the Committee, and what, I thought, would be to the convenience of the Committee, was that the other three Amendments could be discussed with the first Amendment. It is only the first Amendment that has been selected for debate.

Mr. G. Brown: I understood all that, Sir William, but I gathered that you thought that these Amendments warranted discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Who is speaking for Sir William? I should not have thought that it was the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), even at this hour of the morning.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman asked a rhetorical question.

Mr. Brown: I understood, Sir William, that you thought that these Amendments all warranted discussion, but you ventured to say that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take a number of them together. If they are worthy of discussion, and if the Committee, in its mood of the moment, does not want to take them together, is it not still open to the Committee to take them separately?
It seemed to me—I say this with every respect which I hold for you personally, as well as in the Chair—that you were trying to give the Committee something like an ultimatum. You seemed to be saying that if we would take the Amendments together, you would allow us to discuss them, but that if we would not take them all together you would allow
us to take only the first one. That seems to me to be going a bit far.
We on this side, who have put down the Amendments, feel that there is a great difference between the effect of the first one and the effect of the others. If in your wisdom, Sir William, without any consultation with us, you thought that all of them should be discussed and, equally without consultation with us, you thought that they all went together and then we explained to you that they do not all go together because there is a great difference between the first one and the others, I should have thought that we were entitled to ask you not to force us either to take them together or to lose them.
The issue is that there are a number of Amendments which we thought we ought to move, and clearly you, Sir William, of your own volition, came to the view that they should be discussed, but it is difficult for us to discuss them together because they do not hang together. [Interruption.] Was someone interrupting me? Was it the Attorney-General for Scotland, sitting in an unwonted place on the back benches?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is no such officer as the Attorney-General for Scotland. There is the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Brown: I understand. The Lord Advocate is sitting on the back bench. Do I gather that he has resigned from the Government in protest against this—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will devote his remarks to the point of order.

Mr. Brown: Yes, I will do so, but if I am interrupted by the Lord Advocate it is inevitable that I should reply to him. Perhaps he should not have interrupted me, or have been allowed to interrupt. I do not know.
Since we feel that the subsequent Amendments do not go with this Amendment, we feel we should not be subject to a Ruling from you, Sir William, which rather sounded—although I doubt whether you meant it so—as though you were saying, "You may discuss these on my terms, otherwise you may not discuss them at all." I am submitting,

with the greatest respect and understanding for your position, that you should allow us to discuss this Amendment, and that if my hon. Friends then wish to move the subsequent Amendments they should be able to do so.
To ask us at this stage to assume that one can telescope a whole host of Amendments in this way looks to us rather more like getting the Bill through than giving the Committee the opportunity it ought to have. With the greatest respect, it seems to be rather limiting the Committee's rights to discuss all the aspects of the Bill that it thinks should be discussed. I hope, therefore, that you will let us deal with this Amendment without giving us any hint—I do not use the word "threat" because that would not be right—that if we insist on taking this alone we cannot move the others.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not pressing the words "threat" or "ultimatum". The position is that the duty is imposed on the Chair of selecting Amendments. If I were to take the course the hon. Gentleman is advocating, it would mean that he was selecting the Amendments for debate rather than the Chair, and that would not be the correct practice. These Amendments have not been selected hastily in the light of the fact that we are working through the night. They were selected before the debate began. It has been open to hon. Members on both sides to consult the Chair and inform themselves which Amendments are to be selected throughout the debate. No hon. Member has previously said that this was not an equitable way of going about it. I feel bound to continue on the course that was decided.
I will now call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). If it is not convenient to discuss the other Amendments that were not considered suitable for selection on their own merit, those will not be selected for debate. None of this has been done hurriedly and there has been no objection to it until now. I believe that full opportunity can be given to both sides of the Committee to discuss every point if we proceed along the lines which I suggested of considering the Amendment which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire intends to move and allowing the


discussion to range more widely over other points.

Mr. Mayhew: May I draw your attention, Sir William, to the fact that we have had a precedent this afternoon. Part of the good tone of the debate to which the Leader of the House paid tribute was due to the co-operation on both sides of the Committee and the occupant of the Chair in handling two Amendments to Clause 1—the Amendment in page 1, line 18 and that in page 1, line 21. They were called simultaneously, to be debated together, and in the discussion it became evident that two separate debates were proceeding. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) made two totally different speeches in dealing with the two Amendments. Finally, the Minister suggested that we should discuss the Amendments separately. This was welcomed by both sides of the Committee and the Chair and was wholly successful. We thus overcame precisely the same difficulty as that which we now face. May we not repeat that practice in order to preserve the very good spirit which has dominated the debate so far?
I cannot commit my hon. Friends, but may I suggest a compromise? I draw attention to the fact that there is considerable similarity between two of these Amendments. I will read them: "in page 2, line 12, after 'a' to insert 'long'"; and "in page 2, line 22, after 'a' to insert 'long'". You will see the similarity, Sir William. If my hon. Friends agree—I cannot commit them—we could take those two Amendments together. We might take first the first Amendment in line 12; then the two which I have read; and finally the fourth Amendment to which you drew attention. I hope that that is clear, but if there are any obscurities about it I am prepared to rise again and to explain it further. I hope that I have made a constructive contribution towards solving the problem.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Hale: May I seek your guidance, Sir William? You said that it is open to any hon. Member to find out which Amendments have been selected. I have been here for sixteen years and I have never had access to the usual channels,

which, like most usual channels, get a little muddy and are sometimes not very communicative. I do not know of any method by which I have the right to ascertain which Amendments have been selected. I am paired and could not even vote a few moments ago. I have an Amendment down to Clause 4 and a consequential Amendment down, and I do not know whether they will be selected. I have always received the utmost possible courtesy from the Chair.
On some occasions I have ventured in moments of difficulty, when I was likely to be seriously inconvenienced, to approach the Chair and to ask for some guidance and information. That has always been kindly, generously and frankly given. But I have always understood that I was rather going outside the normal rules and that the information was not normally, regularly or obligatorily available. How do I find out, Sir William, what Amendments are to be moved? How am I to know whether, if I stand with this gallant band till Clause 4 comes up, perhaps not till 8 o'clock in the morning, my Amendment may be selected and I may be able to put my constituency point which I am here to urge?

The Deputy-Chairman: Speaking from my own experience, which I think is shared by other occupants of the Chair. I have never known an occupant of the Chair to decline to inform an hon. Member who comes to him privately at the Table and asks if he can see which Amendments are selected. That system has served us well in the past and will, I am sure, continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Hale: I accept that of course, Sir William, and I acknowledge the gracious kindness which we always receive from the Chair, but I was under the impression that that was a courtesy which we always received and not a right which we are entitled to demand.

Mr. Marsh: On a point of order. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) when he suggested that we might well resolve this difficulty by debating together the Amendment in page 2, line 12 and that in page 2, line 22, it occurs to me that it might perhaps have been overlooked that these Amendments, together with another Amendment, are all part of the same exercise. It would be


possible to take not only the two Amendments to which I have just referred, but another Amendment which goes with them, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the second "the" in line 6. I am trying to make the point that there is no reason why all these Amendments, which are concerned with the same point, should not be discussed together. If that would be of any help to the Committee, I for my part should be only too happy to adopt that course.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said. I am sure that it is not being unfair to the Committee to proceed as I suggest. Besides the debate on the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), with which I suggest the debate can take place on the other three Amendments, there is the right to debate the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I am quite satisfied that that would allow every point to be put and I should like the Committee to proceed as has been decided.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Further to that point of order. You, Sir William, have suggested that we should discuss four Amendments together. That suggests to me that the Chair has decided that each of those Amendments is in order and that in the course of speeches hon. Members can speak to any one of them. Bearing in mind that we are the legislature, that we not only determine policy but the form in which that policy will be given effect to in legislation, hon. Members having discussed these Amendments can, presumably, decide whether or not to accept them, that is, each of them in turn. The Legislature must be free to decide what its attitude is on each of those four Amendments.
Therefore, after discussion on these four Amendments we could vote on any one or all of them and reach whatever decision the Committee thought fit. But you have said, Sir William, that if hon. Members are unwilling that Amendments which in their own view are not closely related should be discussed together, the Chair will take the view that the first will be taken and discussed and the other three will not be debated at all because they have not been selected.
I do not follow the suggestion you have made. I am sure that you are not trying to deny to hon. Members of the Committee their right as hon. Members to alter legislation as they think fit. I am not boasting here but merely stating what I believe to be the fact that I have had more experience of Committee work in the Chamber and in Standing Committee than any hon. Member now present. I have been a Member of the House of Commons for a little over eighteen years and, as you know, Sir William, Members representing Scottish constituencies attend far more Standing Committees than any other hon. Members.
In the past sixteen years there have been few Parliamentary weeks when I have not been present in Committee and few occasions over the whole period when I have not been participating actively in the work of the Committee of which I have been a member. I have not in all those years ever had the experience of being told by the Chair that if a series of Amendments were grouped we could discuss them but if they were not grouped for discussion some of the Amendments would not be selected by the Chair.
This might not be altogether a precedent. I do not know about that, but it is something which I have not run against over a great many years in Standing Committee, and I understand that the same rules apply there as apply in a Committee of the whole House. I am a little fearful lest your Ruling on this occasion might very severely restrict the right of hon. Members to move their Amendments in their own way in future.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) thinks that one or two of his Amendments are in no way related to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), it seems a great pity if he is to be told that he may discuss his Amendments only if he discusses them together with that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. If my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich could so discuss one of his Amendments in those circumstances, then presumably he would be entitled to divide the Committee on it, but if he is not able to discuss it together


with that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire he will not be allowed to discuss it at all.
This seems to me to be treating hon. Members with less than fairness. I should have thought it would be better to allow the Committee to proceed by calling Amendments together where hon. Members agree that they should be called together, but as long as the Chair has rules that they can be discussed together presumably they have been notionally selected and it seems to me that if hon. Members do not agree to their being discussed together they should be discussed separately.

Mr. Paget: I asked at the beginning and I was told that these four Amendments were selected. It was doubtless my neglect that I did not see that they were to be discussed together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has pointed out, a similar difficulty occurred earlier in the debate, and that put me in some difficulty. I was then in favour of the first Amendment and opposed to the second. I asked the Chair whether in those circumstances, if they were debated together, I could vote for one and against the other.
1.15 a.m.
I am in the same position here. I am opposed to the first Amendment and in favour of the other three. I presume that the same Ruling as we had before applies, and that we shall be able to express ourselves in the Lobby on these four Amendments. If that be so, and I assume that it is so because that Ruling was given in this Committee in like circumstances, it becomes simply a matter of convenience.
I should have thought that two different arguments were more conveniently taken separately, but it is not in the least conclusive. We can take the two arguments together. We can get the replies to the different points, and we can draw the distinction when the Chair thinks it is proper to do so.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is a common practice in Committees of this House for the Chair to perform its duty of selecting Amendments. Sometimes it is decided that one Amendment shall be

selected for debate and for a Division. Points covered by other Amendments may be conveniently discussed at the same time, but those other Amendments are not necessarily selected for a Division.
As the Committee knows, that is not a hard and fast rule. There are cases, noticeably in the Finance Bill, where an important separate point requires a vote for the record, and when the Chairman announces that more than one Amendment will be discussed at the same time, it is announced that it will be open to the Committee to have a Division on a further Amendment afterwards although the debate takes place on only one Amendment.
In this case it was decided long before this turned into an all-night sitting—in fact during the morning of today—that these four Amendments could conveniently be discussed together. Only one was of sufficient importance to justify it being selected by the Chair, but it was thought that it would be convenient to allow the other three to be discussed at the same time but not to be selected for separate discussion and Division.
That is a normal course for this Committee to carry out its affairs, and I understand that I am doing what is normal in proceeding along those lines. I should like to be allowed now to get the debate going in the way I have suggested, by calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and allowing the other three Amendments to be discussed at the same time but taking the vote on the Amendment which will be moved for debate, that is, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Sir William. That decision is contrary to the Ruling given by Sir Gordon earlier today. It puts us in a difficult position. I am strongly opposed to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I think that we ought to have the 22-year engagement. It is a very good thing. On the other hand, I am in favour of the other Amendments. I think that it is unreasonable to put hon. Members in a position in which not only do they discuss


together Amendments to which they are opposed and Amendments which they support, but they will have to divide on Amendments which are different and on which they take opposite views.
When I put that difficulty to Sir Gordon earlier today, he said that there was no difficulty; that although the Amendments were selected for discussion together, we should be able to divide on them as we chose. I submit that on the same Committee stage a Ruling of that sort ought not to be reversed by a different Chairman.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Chair endeavours to observe conformity in Rulings, but circumstances differ from hour to hour.

Mr. G. Brown: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes—from hour to hour.

Mr. Brown: What circumstances?

The Deputy-Chairman: I will tell the Committee the position in which the Chair finds itself. Forty-seven Amendments were put down to the Bill. About twenty-one have been selected for debate and for Divisions. Let us suppose that I acquiesce in what the hon. Member is asking and allow Divisions to take place on the other four Amendments, and let us further suppose that I carry out that procedure throughout the debate on the Bill. We would then have forty-seven Divisions. I do not think that a Chairman would be rightly performing his duty of selection if, on a Bill of this sort, he so arranged affairs that there were forty-seven Divisions in respect of all the forty-seven Amendments tabled to the Bill. I referred to circumstances changing from hour to hour. Already, when I have been in the Chair, the Committee has been contented to debate five Amendments together, and there was no question of demanding a Division on each of those five. I am only proceeding in the normal way.

Mr. T. Fraser: You put us in some difficulty, Sir William, when you say that it would be unreasonable for the Committee of the whole House to have forty-seven Divisions if there is a clash of opinion on forty-seven occasions in respect of a Bill with thirty-nine Clauses

and three Schedules. I have known occasions—as you have, Sir William—when we have had forty-seven Divisions on very much shorter Bills than this. Surely it is the question whether or not there is a clash of opinion in the Committee which determines how many times the Committee divides.
Before you made that point, which I would ask you to reconsider, I had in mind to put this to you: you said that the Chair has decided to take these four Amendments together for discussion and to have a Division only on the first. Do you realise that it is possible that the whole Committee, including the Secretary of State for War, might be anxious to accept the three following Amendments, which you have said will not be put before the Committee, although the Committee will be invited to discuss them—so that if the whole Committee decides to reject the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Huges) and agree to the other three, it will not be allowed to make those Amendments? I submit that that would be a most unreal position for the Committee to get into.
If the Committee did not want to divide on the other Amendments it would be quite normal for it not to request the Chair to allow a separate Division on each of them. That is a very common practice. A group of Amendments may be taken together, and both sides of the Committee may recognise that one Division on the group is quite sufficient to enable the two sides to register their attitude to the whole group. On this occasion it has been said, and repeated, and I am sure that it is true, that the first Amendment is quite unrelated to the other three. So if we are to have a debate on the four, at the very least those who want the next three Amendments and do not want the first Amendment ought to be able to register their view. I should have thought that it would be in accordance with our past practice that that should be so. I do not think that there will be four Divisions. I think that there may be two Divisions and that, as the three following Amendments stand apart from the first, those who want the three Amendments ought to be given some opportunity not only of discussing them to


show that they are good Amendments but also of registering their views in the Division Lobby, if necessary.

Mr. Paget: Further to the point of order, Sir William. You said that earlier we had accepted and discussed five Amendments together, and that is true. It was not unreasonable that those five Amendments should hang together. No one wanted to vote for one of them and not for the others. The position here is that no one would seriously want to insert the word "long" in line 12 and not to insert it in line 22, or to insert either of those words without leaving out the words referred to in the Amendment in page 3, line 1, since the object of inserting the word "long" is as a substitute for those words.
The first Amendment is a matter of principle which appeals to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I feel that most hon. Members ate likely to be strongly opposed to it—I am merely anticipating. I put down two drafting Amendments and when I had explained them, the Government accepted them. Clearly, the other three Amendments here are an improvement to the Bill, making it shorter and simpler, and I have every expectation that the Government will accept them. I only ask, Sir William, that the Government should have an opportunity to accept them, without also having to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. I think that I can detect some sympathy from the Under-Secretary of State for the idea that the Government should have the opportunity to consider whether they would like to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Hale: I do not desire to prolong this debate. I want to get to my own Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is to leave out paragraph (a). The second Amendment proposes to amend paragraph (a). How can we seriously and usefully discuss adding a definition to paragraph (a) while we are discussing an Amendment to leave it out? How can we by a single Division, register our desire to excise paragraph (a)? I shall be in the difficult position of having to support an hon. Member who is not a member of the party. I

am anxious to support the party in an Amendment to paragraph (a). There is no way in which on a matter of that kind one can vote for the excision of the provision and for this improvement. I do not see how one could usefully attend to both those propositions simultaneously.

1.30 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are in a considerable difficulty here. Hon. Members feel so keenly on the points that they are making. The question that we are going to decide is on the Amendment in page 2, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a), and once that is decided, as it seems to me, the subsequent Amendments will fall.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Marsh: With respect, Sir William, if in fact a decision were taken to accept—which I think is most unlikely—the Amendment in page 2, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a), this would destroy the immediately following Amendment in page 2, line 12, after "a", to insert "long", but it would leave untouched the next but one Amendment, in page 2, line 22, after "a", to insert "long", and it would also leave untouched the Amendment to page 3, line 1, to leave out from beginning to the second "the" in line 6.
If the Amendment in page 2, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a), were accepted, which I suggest is not highly probable, to say the least, the most that would happen would be that this would render invalid the following Amendment in line 12, after "a", to insert "long", but it would have no effect on the other two Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Committee decides that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, it will have decided that those words stand, and any subsequent Amendment to alter that decision would fall to the ground.

Mr. Paget: No, with great respect, Sir William. The subsequent Amendment is to add to the words. One can always add to words which one has decided shall stand part.

The Deputy-Chairman: As I understand it, we should be inserting words when we had already agreed to the


words. But I do not want the Committee to be delayed indefinitely on this very small point. I had thought that what was selected before the debate began, and what was certainly common knowledge to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as to what was to be selected, met with the approval of the Committee. I was surprised to hear protests when I made my suggestion in accordance with what had been arranged.
However, if hon. Members feel that they are being unfairly dealt with—and it is in the interests of the Committee as a whole to get on with the business—I propose to call the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to move his Amendment alone. Then I will call the other three Amendments together, if that is agreed, for debate.

Mr. Mayhew: In thanking you very much for the suggestion that you have made, which I am sure will appeal to my hon. Friends and, indeed, to both sides of the Committee, I wonder whether, before the Amendment is moved, I could clear up the point that you mentioned about the knowledge available to hon. Members as to what Amendments are to be called.
This is, after all, not what one would call a party Bill. We do not divide very clearly on party lines on a Bill like this. Equally it is a complicated Bill. It is difficult to decide whether one Amendment falls if another is or is not carried. The consequence is that there is no easy, clear way of informing all hon. Members about exactly which Amendment falls if one or the other is called and accepted or not accepted. The result is, as you see yourself, if I may suggest it with respect, Sir William, that even the most expert people can be confused on this point. If it is possible for those who have the duty of calling the Amendments sometimes to be a little uncertain as to how the Amendments hang together, it is even easier for a person in my position not to know this.
For this reason I hope you will understand, Sir William, that any failure on our part to draw the attention of the Chair in advance to the question whether one Amendment hangs with another or not, is not due to any lack of good will or a desire not to co-operate with the

Chair, but to the sheer intellectual difficulty of coping with a Notice Paper such as this.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we all understand the position. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that a new practice has been adopted with relation to the Finance Bill of exhibiting a list of Amendments selected and the whole House then has the opportunity of seeing which Amendments are to be selected in Committee. That is quite a novel practice, but so far it appears to have proved satisfactory. I do not think that a decision has been taken yet whether that practice should be pursued in the case of other Bills, and arguments might be used on either side. It is not for me to lay down any ruling now as to which is the better plan, but for the present Bill it was decided to adhere to the old practice of it merely being up to hon. Members to consult the occupant of the Chair as to which Amendments had been selected, and it was thought that that would work as well as it has worked for very many years. My reply to the hon. Member would be to say that what he has said has been noted and the matter is very much under consideration.
Now I call the hon. Member fox South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) without further ado please to move his Amendment.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am very glad indeed that at last we have come to my Amendment. I am grateful that it has been selected, but I gather that it is not to meet with the unanimous approval of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I look hopefully to the other side of the Committee and see the Lord Advocate there. I hope that in the debate I shall have the support of his clear, lucid and legal mind. I can see no other reason why he should be here. I am hopeful that even if the legal advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is not at my disposal on this Amendment, the Lord Advocate will keep me in mind when I may be in a difficult situation.
I believe that my Amendment is a reasonable, logical, constructive and helpful one. I hope that when I have completed my argument it may receive some modicum of support in addition to the support which appears to be at my disposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). In the discussion of points of order and procedure it has been referred to as the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, but it seems to have attracted the support not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but also of my hon. Friends the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). I understand that later, when he knows that this Amendment has been called, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock is to come in to join the debate and, possibly, wind it up. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) also added his name to the Amendment. I understand that he is actually a member of the executive of the Labour Party. How I have succeeded in attracting his support I do not know, but I presume that as he is a lawyer it is given purely on the legal merits and not through his wishing to give me general approval. I did not understand, when I put down the Amendment, that I should attract such a number of influential signatories to support it.

Mr. Marsh: Since I added these names to the Amendment I should in fairness to the other two hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend has referred make some explanation how they came to be in my hon. Friend's company and with him on this.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We have not yet had the Amendment moved. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) would continue by moving it.

Mr. Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a).
I consulted only the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I am glad to have the support of other hon. Members.
The purpose of my Amendment is to delete the words
(a) a term of twenty-two years of army service; or

which have to be read with the immediately preceding words:
Where the person enlisting has attained the age of eighteen years the said term shall be…
twenty-two years. I consider this too long a time. We are asking young men of 18 to agree to make a contract with the Government for twenty-two years' service, and that is a very long time. When they have completed it they will be 40. If they enlist this year they will continue to serve in the Army till 1983. It is a long-term contract from the point of view of the prospective soldier and also from the point of view of the Government.
I fail to understand how the number twenty-two came to be in the Clause. I understand that the idea of a very lengthy term of service resulted from persistent agitation by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I think that in his enthusiasm for the Army he has gone too far. I wonder how much thought the prospective recruit is likely to give to it before signing this contract. It certainly is not the kind of contract young people in other spheres of equally important national activities would be called upon to sign.
1.45 a.m.
I represent a constituency that is essentially a mining area in which a large number of men on attaining the age of 18 decide to take up a mining career—a career which, I consider, is as useful, as nationally important and as patriotic as even the Army or the Air Force. Would anyone suggest that the Coal Board should ask the young miner to sign a contract to remain in the mines for twenty-two years? Accordingly, I fail to see why we should ask the young soldier to agree to serve for this extremely long period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley often puts forward the argument that the young soldier must be given a long-term engagement, so that when he leaves the Service at a reasonably young age he will receive a substantial, a satisfactory and an enticing pension. That pension is held out to the young men of Britain in the recruiting drives. It can be said, however, that that is likely to entice young men into the Forces in a


rather superficial way, without them really considering what the 22-year contract really implies.
I am the first to admit that the pension is indeed attractive. It is at a level of the pension attributable to the teaching profession. But in being so attractive, hon. Members must realise that the War Office is attracting young men into the Armed Forces—but away from the mines. Potential recruits from my constituency for the Armed Forces represent potential miners.
No miner at the age of 40 will be able to retire with anything like the pension being offered to the Service man under this Bill. That will not help Britain's industries, whose future success represents the economic strength of the country.
When a Service man retires at the age of 40 he receives a pension of £6 or £7 a week—while the miner, at 65, retires on a pension from the Coal Board of about £1 a week. There is a danger that the Services will attract young, able-bodied men, who otherwise would go into the mining and other industries, by offering what I consider to be rather generous pension rates.

Mr. Morris: Can my hon. Friend assist us? He suggests that there is an unfair advantage between the miner and the soldier who has a pension at the age of 40. How do the rates of wages of the two compare? Does not the rate of wage of the miner—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is likely to lead the debate out of order if he gets on to rates of wages.

Mr. Hughes: I should be glad at some other time, when I would be in order, to give my hon. Friend the information he desires. Without wishing to transgress the rules of order, I only wish to say that there is a variety of wages in the mining industry. If we compare the mining industry with the Army or the Air Force, we have to compare not one set of wages, but a whole series of wages ranging from what might be called the unskilled private soldier up to the sergeant major. There is a variety of wages when comparing, say, the worker at the coal face and the worker who is the day wage man.

I do not wish to enter into that argument except to show that this is far too complicated a matter to explain on the Amendment. I am only advancing the general idea that in our attempt to attract people into the Army, there is a tendency to overdo it.
I realise that the Army needs a high rate of pay and good conditions of service to attract people nowadays. Even with the advantage in pension, other conditions in the Army are such that people would rather work down a good, healthy coal mine than be attracted into the Army or the Air Force. In our attempt to make the recruiting figures boom, there is a tendency to overdo it. I certainly am in favour of paying the soldier a living wage as long as we have soldiers—

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about pay in the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: It is true, Sir William, that I transgressed concerning pay, but I was referring to what the position will be in 1983 for the soldier with a pension. The whole idea of the long-term engagement has been to increase the number of recruits for the Army and the Air Force which will be necessary, apparently, now that there is no longer any intake from National Service.
I think of other industries, of engineering, shipbuilding and all the various industries which are essential to the economic recovery of the country. If we offer the long-term engagement with good conditions, we will be attracting young people from industries that are essential to our economy, even from the viewpoint of organising any kind of military activity.
It is difficult to understand the point of view of any thoughtful young person who is prepared to sign on in the Army for twenty-two years. The only idea behind it is that it is a career, but what kind of a career? I can understand that anyone joining the Army fifty years ago would have had a fairly good idea what life would be like after twenty-two years in the Army. But what is the position likely to be now? It is difficult for any thoughtful young man to think what life will be like in the Army twenty-two years from now. I shall have more to say when we discuss the period of twelve years.
We see the tremendous difference between the mechanised Army of today and the old infantry, and I wonder, if this evolution proceeds, what it will be like after another twenty-two years, especially with the development of nuclear weapons. What kind of soldier will be required in the 1970s and 1980s? Are we building up an Army that will be of much use in the conditions prevailing, if we are not destroyed by a nuclear war, by 1983? The modern soldier has to have a different kind of skill from the old. We are in an age when tanks are becoming obsolete, and the whole conception of strategy—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going very wide of the Amendment, which refers to twenty-two years' Army service.

Mr. Hughes: My argument is that twenty-two years is a very long term. There is a danger not only in not looking far enough ahead, but in looking too far ahead. My argument is that twenty-two years is a term that should not be agreed to by the Committee and that the shorter term might be more sensible and more economic. If we take on men for twenty-two years and then discover half way thorough that we do not require them, it will mean that they will have to be compensated. If we reach a stage where we have to reduce the size of the Army because of disarmament, I should be in favour of giving the maximum compensation to those soldiers whom we sent back into civilian life. Sometimes hon. Members get the impression that because I am a pacifist I am against the soldier. I am not.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): Order. This is not relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: What I am driving at may be rather obscure, but I am pointing out that this 22-year contract may have to be broken, because I trust that the Government hope to have come to some measure of disarmament agreement before twenty-two years are up.
A short-term engagement would be preferable, because if we have to discharge a number of men who are on 22-year engagements the amount of compensation

—and I favour the payment of compensation—will be much more than if we had enlisted men on 10-year or 12-year engagements. The deletion of this paragraph would therefore be sensible from the point of view of both the potential soldier and the country. I urge the deletion of the 22-year engagement, which is not relevant to a modern Army organisation or to conditions in the modern world.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) condemns the proposal in Clause 2 (2, a) on the ground that it is good for neither the soldier nor the country. I argue the exact contrary on both grounds. I will take, first, the needs of the Army and the country.
My hon. Friend has long argued for the abolition of conscription, and he has been very vociferous in his demand that we should get away as far as possible from weapons of mass destruction. I will leave aside the issue whether we should use force in any circumstances. My hon. Friend does not believe that we should use force, and I regretfully accept its necessity. But clearly, if we are to get away from weapons of mass destruction and from conscription, and if we recognise, as we must, that the world is a dangerous place, then we must have a Regular Army of such competence that it can handle most situations without weapons of mass destruction. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that on those grounds he has an interest in the maintenance of a competent Army.
If we are to have an efficient Army which is compatible with the maintenance of democracy, the way in which we raise that Army is important. I have often argued that one reason why democracy never took root in Germany was the very special place to which the long-service German N.C.O. and warrant officer were raised over the years.
In this country we have done it much better. It has often been done in a way not very kind to the individuals concerned, but we have done it by persuasion and without giving excessive privileges in such a way as to endanger our way of life. I hold with conviction the view that the British Army must


have a corps of long-service N.C.O.s. and that the competence of the Army will in large measure depend on the quality of its long-service content. That is the argument from the country's point of view.
I turn to the point of view of the individual. If we want to encourage people to join the Army on long-term engagements we must safeguard their future. The hon. Member does me too much credit when he claims that I am responsible for what has happened. I have often raised my voice in the House in support of measures which safeguard the future of the class from which I sprang. I am very conscious of the fact that I sprang from that class. If I have done anything to bring that about I am honoured. The hon. Gentleman must not give me too much credit. As regards long-service engagements, the Royal Air Force has not always kept in line with the Army.
I noticed that in the course of his speech the hon. Member several times mentioned the Army and the Royal Air Force as if the proposals for one were the proposals for the other. It is one of the little mysteries of the Amendments on this point that my hon. Friend seems to have read as far as Clause 2 but not as far as Clause 8, which deals with the Royal Air Force.
I would only enter into a slight controversy with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) when he—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I can understand the point that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is making, but I intended to deal with the position of the Royal Air Force—

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot hear what the hon. Member says if he does not address the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: I was saying that I intended to deal with the Royal Air Force in a further series of Amendments, because I assumed that the discussion on the Army warranted at least one session of debate and I hoped to come to the Royal Air Force at a later stage. I had certain relevant comments to make about the Royal Air Force which I did not make because I thought that this debate was centred more on the Army than on the R.A.F.

Mr. Wigg: That is something of which the hon. Member may convince himself, but it does not convince me. I begin to understand why he was convicted in five courts martial if he could not spin a better yarn than that. In the course of his speech, the hon. Member spoke as if he thought the two Services were the same, but my case against him does not depend on that. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at paragraph 3 of the Special Report he will see that it states:
The provisions concerning Army enlistment introduce relatively minor improvements but the Clauses dealing with Air Force enlistment are the outcome of changes in policy.
As far as the Army is concerned, the hon. Gentleman wants to do away with the 22-year engagement. But if he wants to do that he should have gone much farther than omitting the subsection from Clause 2. All that that Clause deals with is a comparatively minor point as far as the Army is concerned and an important point as far as the individual is concerned. It has a different effect concerning the 22-year engagement in the case of a man who enlists just before the age of 17 years and 6 months, which is the minimum age, from what it has in the case of a man who enlists just after that age. He gets treated differently.
That brings me to the point on which I am at variance with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East. The penny did not drop when he was speaking during the early stages of the debate, because I thought that we were dealing with the earlier set of Amendments. Going back to the policy adopted before the introduction of the 22-year engagement some nine years ago, unless the soldier re-engaged—it did not matter what service he had; he could have had eighteen years' service—or if at one point he did not re-engage, he did not qualify for pension. The same re-engagement was required in the case of the man discharged because of a non-attributable disability.
What the Army and Air Force here were both concerned to do was to make sure that a man who entered into a 22-year engagement should get a fair crack of the whip by having an engagement which was pensionable, and that is what all these Amendments set out to do. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire brought tears to his own eyes but


not to mine when he dealt with the spectacle of the young man who was entering in 1961 into an engagement until 1983. [Interruption.] I do not want to address words of reproof to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The man is given the opportunity of entering into a pensionable engagement, but he does not enter into an engagement which he necessarily has to serve. He can break it at twelve years in any case, but he can also break it at lesser intervals.

Mr. Hale: On payment.

Mr. Wigg: He does not have to pay anything. If my hon. Friend will look with care and employ that first-class mind of his he will arrive at the simple fact that the engagement of twenty-two years was introduced for the Army in order to safeguard the soldier's pension rights. My hon. Friend will find from Clause 8 that this is what is happening in the Air Force now. The Air Force is to make it possible in his interest for a man entering a long-term engagement—

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) by saying that if he would only look at Clause 8 he would find what is the position in the Air Force, and he rebukes me by saying that if I would only look at Clause 8 I would find out how a man gets out of the Army.

Mr. Wigg: I would not say anything as silly as that even if I were talking in my sleep.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend should look at what he will have been reported as saying.

Mr. Wigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 3 of the Special Report which puts the proposal in focus—that the Army enlistment arrangement is of a minor character and that of the Air Force is a major change in policy.

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), but I cannot understand two points which he has made. One is that the purpose of the 22-year engagement is to enable the soldier to obtain a pension upon retirement. I cannot understand

why this can be achieved only by a 22-year engagement and why it is impossible to have a 12-year engagement or any other period, as happens in industry. The other point which my hon. Friend makes is that a man can break his service at several specified points in his 22-year engagement. If that is so, and it does not cost the man anything and it is apparently a fairly simple exercise, why is it so important that he should sign on for twenty-two years?

Mr. Hale: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wigg: On the aggregation of service, all I can say is that these regulations were in force in the Army long before I was born. It was a condition and a qualification for pension that a man had to re-engage. It caused a lot of heart-burning. I am sure that my hon. Friend has met constituents who had aggregated a considerable period but were not entitled to pension because they had failed at the proper time to re-engage and therefore were not eligible. When my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East said that a certain man had to be given an ex gratia payment, it was because he was not serving on a pensionable engagement.
2.15 a.m.
The qualification used to be re-engagement. Now it is entering into a pensionable engagement of twenty-two years, and the Army and the Royal Air Force require that a man can enlist initially on a pensionable engagement.
The other thing which needs to be borne in mind is that up to the outbreak of war the right to extend service or to re-engage was a valued right. It was not in any sense automatic. Only a small percentage of people were allowed to re-engage. We must not forget that at one time there was a period of great unemployment when 2 million people were unemployed.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is going a little far from the specific Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, this is an involved and complicated argument and if one is questioned on the history of this, one cannot develop the argument without stating the structure of this engagement. The 22-year engagement is a pensionable


engagement which was introduced to enable men, at the commencement of their service, to go in for an engagement which, if they chose, they could follow through and qualify for pension.
I am trying courteously to explain to my hon. Friend why there is a difference. The answer is that before the war there were various stages. First, there was enlistment for twelve years, partly with the Colours and partly with the Reserve, depending on the arm of the Service. Then there was extension where the man extended his service to twelve years. Again, some ranks had the right to re-engage. I think that a sergeant after nine years' service had the right to re-engage for twenty-one years. Those were valued rights. In these days they are not appreciated as much as they were, but that is the history of it.
The man having undertaken a pensionable engagement and having chosen to safeguard his rights, neither the Army nor the Air Force hold him to that engagement. There is no question of him paying anything. He merely gives notice to his commanding officer after twelve years, or at the point of time specified in the Regulations.
There is yet another factor. By undertaking a long-service engagement, a man not only qualifies for a pension but for a higher rate of pay, because the Armed Forces in their wisdom—and it is a policy which I applaud—in an endeavour to step up recruiting have linked rates of pay with length of service. This is called a differential rate of pay, and I think that it is the right policy.
If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had his way and deleted this subsection, it would not do what he wants. It would not do away with this terrible long-service engagement. It would leave the Royal Air Force unaffected. He would harm the man because of the anomalies which have crept in following the introduction of the 22-year engagement. The Army has been fairly good in clearing up the anomalies which were part of the change in policies and with which individuals get landed. The only effect of the Amendment would be to maximise this and to increase the hardship on a number of individuals. It

would harm only a small number of individuals, but it would be important to them, and it would strike a blow at the efficiency of the Army. The hon. Gentleman may want to do the second, but he is a kindly man and I am sure that he would not want to do the first. For those reasons I suggest that he should not press the Amendment.

Mr. Mayhew: Would my hon. Friend complete his extremely useful and clear account of the 22-year engagement by adding that the man can break after the 12-year period as well as before?

Mr. Wigg: Yes. The terms are to be found under the prescribed Regulations, but I thought that I should be wearying the Committee and trying the patience of the Chair if I went through them.

Mr. Hale: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has proved a great deal too much. This canard—and it is a canard—was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). He said that the whole object was to put right a little pension anomaly; that particulars are to be found on page 3 of the Select Committee's Report, and that it was one of the little hares that the Committee put up. It is right that the passing of the Clause will put right a small anomaly, but no one can read the opening paragraph of the Committee's explanation of the Clauses without realising what we are providing in a Bill intended to govern the Army for five years and what, in my view, is a contravention of the Bill of Rights—but I will not go into that now—in that a lad of 18 may sign on for a 22-year engagement. There it is—and I object to a lad of 18 being allowed to sign on for such an engagement.
I appreciate the note which one of my hon. Friends has handed me, but I want to make some points on behalf of my constituents, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley to listen to them. I have a constituent awaiting a court martial because he deserted from the Army while his parents were collecting £20 to buy him out. I have served in the Forces. Although I am a pacifist I am not anti-militarist, and I believe that conditions in the Services are good for the people who have the talent for such a career and are prepared to submit


to reasonable discipline; but I also believe that Service life can be hell for the man who hates it. But he does not find out that it is hell for some time, and then he is told that he is tied up for twenty-two years.
It is all very well for Members to say that it was very nice of the brigadier-generals on the Committee to make this arrangement, but I want to know what happens to my constituents. There is not one Member who does not have hopeless and helpless, miserable and unhappy lads who joined the Army at 18, who have married since, whose wives are having babies in slums in Oldham or other industrial cities, who are worried to death about their girls, and who are getting miserable, unhappy letters from those lonely wenches saying that they are having to go through this unhappy experience in back streets.
I believe that the War Office has behaved extremely humanely in these cases. I appreciate its difficulty. I know that the man who wants to get out can play up the trouble. I know that a medical certificate is not always to be relied on. I have always found in the War Office a promptitude and courtesy that I do not find in any other Ministry. I am making neither criticism nor attack. My point is that a 22-year engagement is too long for a lad of 18.
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, who said that he would make a speech in which he would show that this was for the good of the country and for the good of the lad. I followed his argument as carefully as I could. I gathered that he said that this was good for the lad because if he signed on for twenty-two years he would get extra pay.

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot hear the hon. Member if he turns his face away from me.

Mr. Hale: I apologise, Mr. Arbuthnot. I am most anxious that everyone shall hear me. My hon. Friend made the point that the man will be better paid. We are the guardians of the public purse, and if my hon. Friend is right in saying that such a man can get out earlier it is a shocking waste of money. He has no right to extra pay if, when he signs on for twenty-two years, he can get out

when he wants to With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that he could. All my experience is that he has to buy himself out.

Mr. Wigg: I did not say that he got out when he wanted. I said that he was not tied for twenty-two years. He has a statutory right to get out in the first three months on payment of £20. After that he has the right of purchase and the Regulations prescribe each point at which he can leave at varying intervals by giving notice. Taking into account the needs of the country as well as those of the individual, I think that these arrangements are not bad.

Mr. Hale: We are now considering whether we should repeat them, and whether they are really good—not whether they are not bad. I should have thought that phrase an unhappy one in this connection. My hon. Friend says that a boy can get out after three months if he has £20. One of my constituents tried it and got conscripted the day after he paid the £20. He was told, "You are 18, my lad, and you cannot get out like that." That was after the Act had ceased, and after I raised the matter I had letters from hundreds of men who said that they served in the war, and the Labour Government conscripted them afterwards because they had not fulfilled the conditions of conscription. In those circumstances, it is not much use a man paying £20 even if he has got it.
I strongly object on political and conscientious grounds to a system which permits a man with money to get out and a man without money not to be able to. I quote from my own recollection and I have known of cases where parents have mortgaged their house and borrowed money to get their son out of a job which he had come to hate. What is the good of it? I happen to be a member of the Royal Commission on the Police. It would be improper for me to make any comment—and I will not do so—about conditions in the police except to say what is perfectly well understood. We try to recruit a police force and hope that the men will serve for twenty-five years. We do that by offering decent terms and conditions. I do not think that anyone would suggest that we could say to a prospective member of the police force, "If you sign on at 18, you will


have to stay until you are 45, whether you like it or not." No one would suggest that that would be the right thing to do.
My hon. Friend referred to Clause 8, and said, "Wait till we get to the Air Force and we shall hear something." We need not wait until then. The Air Force says, "Our conditions are so good that we do not have wastage of recruits. In the first period our wastage is 3 per cent. and the Army is 13 per cent. My hon. Friend is as good a Socialist as I know and I am nearly always on his side. I respect what he says, but I say that the Socialist remedy is to make conditions so good that the boys will not want to go out. If there are one or two who do want to go, we should be better off without them. Why try to hang on to a lad for twenty-two years. In the whole history of our professions lads take courses of training and embark on a career and many of them are happy. But a few are singularly unhappy and get out and perhaps they are wise to do so. Those of us in the profession of the law know that it is a happy life for those who like it, but it is no career for those who do not, and that is true of almost every profession.
I submit that the Amendment is right. It is no use saying that it is a technical Amendment, whatever the purpose for which it was introduced, and whether it makes little or no alteration in the existing position. The plain fact is that the Clause we are now considering gives a lad of 18 the opportunity to sign a contract which he can break only with expense, difficulty and frustration.

Dr. Alan Glyn: That is not so, because he can break his service at certain periods without any payment at all. The only payment is in the first period when he is a recruit and he can buy his way out for £20. Afterwards there are specific intervals when he can get out without any payment at all. He is not bound for twenty-two years.

Mr. Hale: He is certainly bound for twelve years. I am still awaiting an answer as to how he can get out after twelve years. This matter has been under discussion for some time. Five hours ago the right hon. Gentleman was discussing this. Until I have an assurance

about how this can be done, and that it is an absolute right and not subjected to a payment, I remain in full support of the Amendment. I believe that this sort of contract is a fundamental breach of the common law. It can be introduced by Statute only. One is not entitled to demand that a lad under 21 years of age should enter into an engagement which one cannot prove to be wholly for his benefit, whereby he signs on for twenty-two years. One cannot enforce it under any law unless we pass this specific Statute to force that obligation upon him.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Wigg: Further to what my hon. Friend has been saying, I would point out that in Clause 3 the right to terminate Army service is clearly laid down.

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) drew attention to the support which his Amendment commanded. I noticed that he had a little support from his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), but I did not think that it compensated for the considerable measure of opposition which his remarks provoked from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
There was nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley with which I could wish to disagree, and, indeed, I think that the Committee would feel disposed to agree with me that many of us—myself certainly included—are a great deal wiser on the general background of the 22-year engagement and its history and purpose than we were before the hon. Gentleman spoke. As the hon. Gentleman told the Committee, the 22-year engagement was introduced originally as a recruiting measure.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire asked why a period of twenty-two years was selected. I cannot give the answer more specifically than the hon. Member for Dudley did, but I suspect that, in the words of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, the fact that it enables a man who enlists at the age of 18 to leave at the age of 40 with a quite considerable pension has something to do with it. Another factor would probably be that mentioned by the hon. Member for Dudley, that a period of twenty-two years is long enough for a man not to have


to re-engage in order to serve a term of that length which establishes him in a long and secure career.
The main misunderstanding which seemed to lie at the root of the argument of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was that he appeared to think that a man who signs on for twenty-two years is bound to complete the full length of the long-term engagement. His principal point was that the engagement was too long. But it is, of course, true, as has been pointed out previously, that there is provision for a break in the engagement after six years—or there may be such provision. In some cases there is a provision for a break after three years. If a man has elected to go on to the appropriately higher rate of pay he foregoes his right until he comes to nine years.

Mr. Hale: rose—

Mr. Ramsden: I know what the hon. Member is going to say. I should say that the man goes into this contract with his eyes open, knowing what he is to take on, knowing what his position will be and when he will be able to get out if he wants to, and various other conditions attaching to such a term of service.

Mr. Hale: As I understand the matter, and I have given some time to it, the Act gives power to make Regulations which can provide that certain breaks may be permitted with the approval of the commanding officer. However honourable the intentions of the Under-Secretary—and I do not want to make any suggestion against them—this is a permissive power to be exercised by instrument and subject to qualifications.

Mr. Ramsden: I think that the hon. Member has got it slightly wrong. There is a permissive power under the 1955 Act which allows the Army Council to make Regulations prescribing when the breaks in the engagement should occur, but whether or not the man has the right to come out has nothing to do with the discretion of his commanding officer. The breaks having once been prescribed, it is the right of the man to opt to take his discharge at that particular time. That is slightly different.

Mr. Paget: It is not a question of Regulations. Section 5 of the Army Act, 1955, says:
A person in army service who enlisted for a term of twenty-two years of such service shall have the right, exercisable as mentioned in subsection (5) of this section,—

(a) to be transferred to the reserve at the end of the period of three or at the end of the period of six years beginning with the date of attestation; or
(b) to determine his service at the end of the period of nine years…."

He can come out completely at the end of nine years.

Mr. Ramsden: I had it wrong and have been put right by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). That is a considerably better answer than I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps it is a little more complicated than that. Surely the terms and conditions of service laid down in Sections 4 and 5 of the Army Act, although they prescribe certain periods for a break, also prescribe that certain terms may be prescribed by Order in Council. Surely the point on which we are all assured is that conditions as to breaks which prevail when the man enlists hold throughout his whole Army career whether those conditions were laid down by Statute or by Order in Council. I believe that the Minister will find that is so.

Mr. Ramsden: I believe that is correct. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).

Mr. Morris: After the initial year of enlistment, in how many cases as of right can a man opt within his twenty-two years service? At what stages can he opt out of the Service?

Mr. Ramsden: He can opt out of his engagement, first—to go through the whole gamut—if he is a recruit, as we shall hear when we discuss a later Clause; then he may buy himself out in the first three months. Secondly, he may opt out at the end of six years if he has not previously taken a decision to go on to a higher rate of pay in return for which he surrenders the right to go out at the end of six years and agrees to serve for nine years before his first


option to come out. Thereafter, he has an option to come out every three years until—if my arithmetic is correct—twenty-one years, which is the final effective option.

Mr. Hale: If he is on a higher rate of pay?

Mr. Ramsden: I am speaking off the cuff, but I believe that the answer is "Yes." This operates only to cancel the option at six years and, if hon. Members think about it, it is not unreasonable. It is worth the Army's while to have the certainty of a man's service in return for the higher rate of pay.

Dr. Alan Glyn: At the end of six years, if he has elected to go on the higher rate of pay, all he has to do is stay three years, and then, after that period, he is in the same position as any other soldier. Is that not so?

Mr. Ramsden: I think that is right, if I understand my hon. Friend rightly.

Mr. Hale: It is not hard. We have passed an Act about it.

Mr. Morris: When does the man opt for the higher pay and therefore lose the right to go out in six years and so is not able to go out till nine years? When does he opt? At what stage?

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that without notice.
I think I have been sidetracked into a rather unnecessarily diffuse discussion on a very complicated subject. What I was really seeking to establish was that when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire argued that this term of years was too long he, I thought, neglected the fact of the opportunity for the various breaks in the term, and when the hon. Member for Oldham, West argued that it was too restrictive he, too, I thought, slightly underestimated the facilities for the man to go out himself as of right.

Mr. Hale: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, and I do not want to criticise at all. It is very late for understanding. We suggested some time ago that it was too late an hour to understand these difficult matters. However, the hon. Gentleman began by saying that it is perfectly

clear and the recruits will well understand the position. He now says, "It is so complicated that I cannot explain." I remind him that we are asking lads of 18 to understand what the hon. Gentleman says is so complicated, when they can come in and when they can go out and all about the higher pay, and so on. If it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman, it is dashed difficult for lads of 18, even when they come from Oldham.

Mr. Ramsden: Pieces of information are coming to my hand, and if it will assist the Committee I can say that the nine-year rate is the highest which a man can opt for when he comes in. He can opt for the 12-year rate only after serving for nine years.
I suspect that had I given further opportunity to the hon. Member for Dudley to address the Committee he could have cleared up these details, with which, I am afraid, I am not familiar, but I hope that I have done something to allay the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I was grateful to him for his tribute to the care which the War Office takes in dealing with constituents' cases and in answering letters, and I hope that will be repeated in the case of the person whom he mentioned tonight when he gets in touch with us.
I regret that I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, and I must ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, after "a" to insert "long".
I shall not detain the Committee long on this and my other related Amendments to the Clause, because they are very simple Amendments for the benefit of the Bill. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will exercise the degree of reciprocity which was exercised by the Secretary of State previously in accepting two other drafting Amendments, because it is undesirable that our legislation should contain unnecessary words or be unnecessarily complicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was making the point that it was asking a lot to expect lads of 18, sometimes of limited education, to understand Acts of Parliament which even an Under-Secretary of State cannot understand, or can understand only with great difficulty.
2.45 a.m.
Bills sometimes contain unnecessary words, and anything we can do to simplify matters must surely be welcomed. On page 3 there are a number of references to "long-term enlistments". In subsection (5) of Clause 2 a long-term enlistment is defined as follows:
References (however expressed) in the four next following sections to a person's enlisting or having enlisted on a long-term enlistment shall be construed as referring to his enlisting or, as the case may be, having enlisted for such a term as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section or paragraph (a) of subsection (3) thereof; and in the said sections….
This, of course, has to be read in conjunction with the paragraph (a) that is referred to in that subsection. This Amendment merely says that further references to long-term enlistment are references to a period of enlistment of twenty-two years. The Amendment seeks to add the word "long" in page 2, line 12, and again in line 22. That will enable a lot of junk, or verbiage, to be removed. The Amendment seeks to clarify the Bill, because it seems pointless to have a phrase which merely shows that a long-term enlistment is one for a term of twenty-two years.

Mr. Paget: This seems to be a simple Amendment. There are two references to the term of twenty-two years, but the Bill takes up six lines to say that those two terms will be referred to as "long terms." This Amendment thus saves six lines.
It is a little late, perhaps, for the Under-Secretary to make up his mind about this matter now, but I ask him to consider this point before the Report stage. At the same time, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also consider a suggestion that was contained in an Amendment which was not called. The suggested words were:
the date of the attestation or the eighteenth birthday, whichever shall be the latter.
That sentence would replace paragraphs (a) and (b) in Clause 2 on page 3 of the Bill, and seems to say the same thing in half the number of words.

Mr. Morris: The object of the Amendment is to make it easier for the soldier fully to understand his terms of enlistment. It has not been an easy

matter for us tonight with the Under-Secretary's answers. He failed to get over to this side, at least, some of the occasions when one could opt out of a 22-year term of service. By knocking out four or five lines on page 3, the Amendment would make the Bill simpler, easier and far more comprehensible for the soldier. Therefore, I support it.

Mr. Ramsden: I am obliged to hon. Members opposite for moving and supporting the Amendment with moderation. In replying on this Amendment, I clearly cannot comment upon the case raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), but he has it on the record. I cannot give him the undertaking, for which he asked, that I will look at the matter before Report and think again, because my advice is that these Amendments would not be a workable addition to the Bill.
I am not a lawyer of sufficient ability to be able to give an objective judgment as between the argument of the hon. and learned Member and the advice that I have seen, but I understand that what is proposed in the Amendments is legally defective in relation to the purposes of the Bill. Taken together, the Amendments form a gallant effort to simplify the drafting of a complicated Clause. They seek to do it by taking out the definition of "long-term enlistment" at the top of page 3 and substituting "long term" for "term" in subsections (2) and (3).
In practice, I am advised, the absence of the somewhat cumbersome definition at the top of page 3 would make the Army enlistment provisions in the succeeding Clauses inaccurate and ambiguous, principally because, according to the Amendments, the phrase "long-term enlistment," which occurs a number of times in Clauses 3 to 6, would be undefined and it would be left to the reader to guess what the words meant, the only guide given to him being the use of the word "long" in subsections (2, a) and (3, a).
That is the position as I am advised. I am aware that there is room for disagreement, particularly in matters of expertise in drafting, but I cannot conscientiously undertake to decide before Report that the hon. and learned Member's advice is right and mine is wrong.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman have one quick look at it? He has referred to Buggins twice on page 2. He then uses a number of lines to say that the Buggins to which we are referring on page 2 is Charles Buggins. Why not, on page 2, refer to him as Charles Buggins? Why, if one calls it long term originally and then refers to it as long term, does one require a definition? The Under-Secretary of State says that he is not a lawyer, and he has no Law Officer here to advise him. A lawyer who takes a first view of these words without an explanation may take a different view when they see the explanation. It is surely not much to ask in these circumstances that the lawyers should have another look at this before Report. I am not going to press the Under-Secretary to put anything down, but just to take it up with his lawyers.

Mr. Ramsden: Mr. Ramsden indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary will appreciate that what we are after is simplification. On page 3 we get these six turgid lines to define twenty-two years as a long-term engagement. If we apply our minds to this we will get a solution. I agree that the Amendments do not in any words define long-term enlistment, and that to that extent they are defective. But we are asking the Under-Secretary, if he cannot accept the Amendment, to have a look at this.
Might I suggest that all he has to do, for example, in (a) on page 2 is just to put in the word "hereafter a long-term engagement," and, if necessary repeat that, and get this matter solved. If the Under-Secretary wants any further advice he should remit the Clause to the Scottish Grand Committee. We would deal with it expeditiously.

Mr. Cronin: We all feel some sympathy with the Under-Secretary. He is completely unsupported by the Law Officers, who, apparently, go to bed early. At the same time, it is clear that many hon. Members feel considerable dissatisfaction with the drafting of this, and it seems that there is at least the possibility that the legal advice which he has received so far might be changed or modified.
Can we take it from the fact that the Under-Secretary nodded assent to the proposition put to him by my hon. and

learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that he will look at this again before Report, that he will investigate again the possibility of simplifying this in the terms of the Amendment or in some other way?

Mr. Ramsden: I certainly undertake to look at it again. I did not want to promise that we would necessarily do anything before Report.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(CHANGE OF CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AFTER LONG-TERM ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR FORCES.)

Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out from "time" to end of line 29.

The Temporary Chairman: It might be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the other Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh), in page 3, line 31, leave out from beginning to "have," in line 36, after "is," insert "so," in line 36 leave out from "reserve" to "he" in line 38, and in page 4, leave out lines 13 to 19.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Paget: These are simply drafting Amendments. The one I have moved refers to the final line and a half of Clause 3 (2)—
before he has completed twelve years' service beginning with the relevant date.
The Amendment would make it read:
Every person who enlists on a long-term enlistment may, on making an application in the prescribed manner, and with the consent of the competent military authority, be transferred to the reserve at any time.
Why should it not be "at any time"? Why do we not want him transferred to the Reserve if the competent authority desires it and he desires it?
The next Amendment is a simple interrogative. The subsection reads:
Every person who enlists on a long-term enlistment shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have the right to determine his service at the end of the period of twelve years…
Why is there a reservation? It is an absolute right, and I do not see how other parts of the Clause derogate from it. Unless they do, then the words
subject to the provisions of this section


are clearly unnecessary. They have significance only if the right, which the subsection otherwise gives, is reduced.
The next two Amendments are drafting. They are in subsection (4). The subsection reads:
Where a person is transferred to the reserve under regulations made in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section, or under subsection (2) of this section, he shall serve in the reserve…
We have been dealing with those two subsections, and if we simply say,
Where a person is so transferred
the next two lines become unnecessary. That one short word does everything which is done by those two lines—and more neatly and more simply.
The Amendment to subsection (5) is a simplification. By adding at the end of (5,a) the words,
shall comply with that undertaking, and
we make paragraph (b), which consists of six lines unnecessary.
I will say exactly what I said last time. The Under-Secretary of State has no lawyers to help him and his right hon. Friend is not here. He is rather tired; he had a long day before coming here, and it is too late for him to apply his mind to this kind of question. I ask him, not to give an undertaking that he will accept the Amendments, but to say that in the light of my explanation he will talk to the lawyers about this and see whether my suggestions for simplification should be adopted.

Mr. Ramsden: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have noted what he said and certainly accept his suggestion, provided that it is on the understanding that if we are still convinced, having looked at his redraft, that our draft is the only draft which is applicable, he will accept that we must abide by it.

Mr. Paget: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cronin: I wish to raise a few points, which I will do as briefly as possible in view of the lateness of the hour. But so important a matter as a change of the conditions of service of long-term enlistment cannot be allowed to go through "on the nod".
May I draw the Minister's attention to subsection (1), which regulates the opting out provisions. It is clear from this subsection that this is something entirely at the discretion of the Army Council. It has complete powers to make regulations. Some of us feel rather worried lest, if there is a diminuation in the strength of the Army due to failure to recruit, the rights of a soldier as he knew them when he enlisted should as a result be prejudiced from the point of view of shortening his service. Some of us feel that we should have at least a vague idea of how the Army Council is likely to use these powers. We should also like to know whether steps will be taken to make these regulations available to hon. Members so that we may at least have some form of parliamentary check on what is happening.
I turn now to subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause. Subsection (2) permits application to be made to go on to the Reserve after twelve years' service, and subsection (3) provides for a soldier to be placed on the Reserve after a period of three years after his 12-year period. Obviously, there will be a financial disadvantage in doing this, and it is only right and just that the Army, which is going to the trouble of training a man, should do its utmost to induce him to stay on for the full term of his engagement. Some of us would like to know exactly how disadvantageous it is financially for a soldier who opts to go on the Reserve at a considerably earlier time than after his long-term period of service.
As hon. Members know, there is a tendency in most occupations these days for employees in civilian life to be able to carry their superannuation rights from one firm to another. This is a modern trend in superannuation. One does not expect anything as advantageous as that in the Army, but we should like to know that there is some reasonable compromise between the wish of the Army to keep men with the Colours as long as possible and, at the same time, the maintaining of some sort of equity as regards their pension rights or gratuity which they receive in lieu of pension.
I turn now to subsection (4), which sets out briefly the conditions of transfer to the Reserve. As I understand, the present position under the Army Reserve


Act, 1950, is that a man who has served for six years goes on to the Reserve for six years, that a man who has served for nine years goes on to the Reserve for three years and that a man who has served for twelve years does not go on the Reserve at all.
Of those who go on to the Reserve, some go into Section A. They can be recalled to the Colours without a proclamation. Others go to Section B and they cannot be called up unless there is a proclamation. As a proclamation is a most unlikely eventuality they are in a strong position inasmuch as they are unlikely to be recalled to the Colours.
I should like the Under-Secretary of State for War to tell us how it is decided, in the case of a man who terminates his service, whether he goes into Section A or Section B of the Reserve. If the hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the points I have raised I shall be much obliged.

Mr. Ramsden: I am obliged to the hon. Member for having given me some indication of the queries he might have on the Clause. I hope that I can give him some of the explanations he has sought. As to subsection (1), there are regulations now in force relating to the right of persons enlisted for long terms to determine their service or to transfer to the Reserve. Similar regulations will be made under the Bill. A man can go into the Reserve at the end of six years, in some instances in three years, or after nine years' service, as, I think, has already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Men can determine service at the end of twelve years or at the end of successive periods of three years. The regulations are not formally laid, but they are on sale at the Stationery Office, which means that they are available without payment to hon. Members.
The hon. Member also asked questions about subsections (2) and (3). If a soldier goes out short of twenty-two years on his engagement he will not get a pension, as the hon. Member has said, but he will receive a gratuity after serving for twelve years. The amount of gratuity increases from twelve to twenty-two years and at the point of twenty-two years the man has earned a pension. I hope that gives some indication to the

hon. Member of a man's financial position.

Mr. Cronin: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the gratuity which a man receives after twelve years' service, for example, will be roughly about twelve twenty-seconds of the capital sum which would bring him the pension that he would receive after twenty-two years' service?

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot say what the mathematical relationship is between the gratuity and the capital sum, but I should be very surprised if it were not in accordance with the principles which the hon. Member has indicated.
On subsection (4), all soldiers opting out, initially go compulsorily to Section A of the Reserve for one year. Thereafter, they may be allowed to volunteer for further periods as Section A reservists. The remainder of their Reserve service is spent in Section B. I think that those were the hon. Member's principal queries. I hope that what I have said will be of some guidance to him and the Committee and that the Committee may now see its way to pass the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(CONVERSION OF SHORT-TERM ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR FORCES INTO LONG-TERM ENLISTMENT.)

Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "enlistment," to insert:
or was called up for compulsory national service.

The Chairman: I think that it will be convenient to discuss also the hon. Member's Amendment in page 5, line 5, at the end to add:
notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary nothing herein contained or provided by any previous enactment or statutory instrument shall authorise the calling up to complete a period of national service or the detention of any man in national service who has been formally discharged from national service to enlist under a long-term engagement or who has been formally discharged by purchase from a long-term enlistment.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful. I think that it is an admirable suggestion, Sir Gordon.
I hope to discuss this matter briefly, because the Under-Secretary already has in mind the question I wish to raise. The


Situation to which I wish to call attention, and for which I wish to provide a remedy, is that of a constituent of mine who was called up for military service in, I think, August last year. I apologise for not having every precise fact at my finger-tips, but, frankly, I had not expected that we should have made the progress which we have made, with the willing co-operation of my hon. Friends, and I had not thought that the Amendment would be discussed this morning.
It was about August when my constituent, who bears a name that is greatly honoured in Oldham, was called up for military service. I understand that after a week or two he did not like it, and that, after all, is not an uncommon experience in any transition from one occupation to another. Then he became more acclimatised and in about October of last year he made the decision that on the whole this was not a bad thing to do and he signed on as a Regular soldier.
3.15 a.m.
There is no dispute on the facts. He was discharged from his conscription in order to become a Regular soldier, and, having been duly discharged, he became a Regular soldier. He was employed in Germany. He tried quite hard. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, he has an excellent conduct record, but I am quoting the example of my constituent as a graphic illustration of the necessity for the Amendment.
Having considered the matter carefully, he became convinced that this was not the career for him. He made application under the provisions which an hour or two ago hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were saying were readily accessible to every young soldier. He decided to buy himself out. He did. He paid not £20. He paid in marks. I think that I am right in saying that he paid 234 marks and 40 pfennigs. He obtained a receipt and was discharged from the Regular forces. He said, "Boy, I am going back to Oldham, which we all like."
At that stage some doubts occurred in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not mind. Quite frankly, on any single issue of the application of any rule of evidence or justice I have long since ceased to hope that my standards would apply. What I am entitled to demand is that some standard of some sort should

apply. When I hear the Colonial Secretary saying at a meeting of the Primrose League that the cornerstone of British justice is the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, or imprisonment without trial, I realise that there is a diversity of opinion.
I make this serious submission, that in the interpretation of facts there is one rule which has never been challenged. It was laid down 600 or 700 years ago by William of Occam. It is called Occam's Razor, and it consists of the simple, non-pretentious words: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

Mr. Ramsden: What was the first word?

Mr. Hale: "Entia" is difficult, but the rest is recognisable to the Under-Secretary of State, and I know that he will accept the quotation.
In other words, even if there is an ordinary explanation of complicated facts, one accepts it. It is on that proposition that most juries are directed to assess the interpretation of facts. I say this because I know that in the mind of the Under Secretary of State and of the right hon. Gentleman there has been some sort of suspicion that behind this there lies a complicated plot. They say that he popped into the Regular Army with the intention of getting out. Let us be frank about it. The facts do not bear that interpretation.

Mr. Mayhew: Irrespective of that case, as I read the Amendments, they would permit somebody to go from National Service into the Regular Army and then purchase his discharge. Am I misreading the Amendments?

Mr. Hale: He would be able to do that.

Mr. Mayhew: Irrespective of the case my hon. Friend has mentioned, he wishes to establish the right of people to go from National Service to the Regular Army and then purchase their discharge.

Mr. Hale: I would not say establish the right to go from National Service into the Regular Army, because National Service has virtually been abolished. By the time the Act is on the Statute Book there will be only a bare minimum of National Service men, but I wish to establish a lawful proposition which can be understood by conscripted men of 18.
Let us face the facts. My hon. Friend must not dash in and assume the worst of my constituent, because if he comes to Oldham, as I am told he went to Coventry, I would be delighted to see him. He will find that the people in Oldham are extremely intelligent, decent and loyal people.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Member suggest that it is fair for a National Service man who has been called up to join the Regular Army and then to pay £20 to get his discharge, having in no way completed the normal term of National Service which any other National Service man would have to complete?

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member wants me to go into the question of what is fair, I would say that many things are unfair. Many of us might die tomorrow from no fault of our own, and many might survive without benefit to the community.
I must not go into the question of accidents, and of what obligations a man who is conscripted undertakes, what contracts he is bound by, and whether, when the Government say to him, "Private Twitton, we insist that you comply with our rules", he is entitled to say, "Very well, I will comply with the rules", as he did. I am not saying what was his motive. I do not know.
All I am told—and I have not seen him, because he is in Germany—is that he thought that, on the whole, it would be a good idea to become a Regular soldier, tried it for a month or so, and found that he did not like it. Then somebody said, "If you do not like it you can get out for £20", and he found he could do this by taking advantage of the regulation issued by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wigg: The lad in question also knew a thing or two. Not only did he join the Regular Army from a National Service engagement, but by so doing he got an increased rate of pay, probably far in excess of the £20 it cost him to buy himself out, so that however this transaction worked out he made a profit from it.

Mr. Hale: I am told by John Gordon that the Government are paying our forces in Germany in depreciated marks

—the value of the mark having recently been adjusted—and are not giving them the advantage of the normal rates of exchange which now operate for everybody else. I do not know why my hon. Friend keeps on popping in testimonials to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend serves the cause of fairness and I serve the cause of truth. On the question of the depreciation of the mark my hon. Friend will find that I pressed the Secretary of State some time ago to put this thing right.

Mr. Hale: If my hon. Friend lays down a contractual obligation for my constituent my constituent is entitled to say, looking at that contract and the obligations contained in it, "I shall take a certain course".

Dr. Alan Glyn: What the hon. Member says is true, but the man has got out of his second contract, and that second contract was made only on condition of his release from National Service; therefore, presumably, he still has to complete his National Service.

Mr. Hale: That is the real trouble. I am trying to be brief. It is my fault, because people judge the facts before they have heard them, which is not one of the cornerstones of British justice, and express views on a series of events which I have not yet narrated. My constituent paid his £20 in marks—I believe that it was 234 marks and 40 pfennigs. Then there was some demur. The authorities consulted. Perhaps the Under-Secretary himself was not quite sure, and it may be that his P.P.S. was sent to investigate, because there was a great delay.
My constituent paid the money in November, and about three or four months went by, after which my constituent returned from Germany to a less reputable part of Lancashire, and was there kept not in custody in the ordinary sense, but certainly kept in the forces for some months. I believe that it was from the end of November to somewhere about March. Then came a receipt for the 234 marks and 40 pfennigs. He got his discharge from the Regular forces, and by that time, after all the consultations that had gone on, National Service had finished. This is March. I would not commit myself on the date. All I say is that on the whole this speech


is much more accurate in detail than most of the speeches that I deliver in this Chamber and it can roughly be relied on.
It was, I think, early in April when the young man was smuggled back to Germany. The astonishing thing is that having given him his discharge, having told him that he had ceased to be one of Her Majesty's soldiers, having been released from his engagement, after months of frustration he is suddenly shanghaied to Germany. I pay tribute to the Minister for his courtesy and for the information which he has given me on other matters. I said, "We know that this sort of thing can happen under this Government. I am asking you under what power do you do it?"

Mr. Profumo: I hope that at least the hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee that I wrote him a long letter about this. I hope that he recollects that. He has said that he wants to be accurate about this matter. The man bought himself out. He was perfectly entitled to do that. But having bought himself out he was still liable to do National Service.
I am under an obligation to see that people do not slip through the noose. Although National Service has come to an end, there was still a liability on this young man. There was no question of shanghaiing him abroad. He was brought back to this country because under the present Constitution I am not entitled to call up anybody unless he is in this country. He was called up and opted to finish his service at once.
I have written a long letter to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not read it to the Committee, but I hope that he will read it to himself.

Mr. Hale: I have not seen a second one. I recall the first letter and what the right hon. Gentleman said, that this man consented to go back. I have not seen the man, because he is in Germany. I have only heard from his parents. I have had a letter from the man and nothing in the letter indicated any agreement. Indeed, he sent forms to submit to the right hon. Gentleman suggesting clearly that he had not agreed. But it is true to say that he had not answered, because I have not had time to put this matter to the right hon. Gentleman. All this happened in the last few days.
On this specific case, I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the man was kept in Preston Baracks for three or four months. Is that to count as part of his service? He was then called back to Germany. Is the right hon. Gentle man proposing to ignore the six months he spent with the Regular forces? Is he going to stick to the £20 that the young man paid for his discharge? That would seem to be a fraud. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that the man should serve his military service because the authorities had come to the conclusion that he was trying to dodge it. I can understand that point of view, although I do not accept it. He is now saying that while they kept the young man for three or four months and took the £20 he paid for his discharge—

Mr. William Yates: That will be paid back to him. Surely the man will get that back.

Mr. Hale: I am asking whether his service in the Regular Army will count towards his compulsory service and whether the money will be repaid. The principal point is whether the six months or so that he served in the Regular forces will count towards his military service.
Let us be frank and honest about this. Suppose that this was a swindle. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have no reason for having any views one way or the other. I have not seen the lad. It may be that he wanted to get out and, if so, he was probably put up to this by an older soldier—we know how these things work, and we know that this possibility of release has been the subject of comment. Suppose that it was a swindle. Why not say, "The chap will serve out his two years from the day he enlisted. Let us call it a day."
I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that now—I ask him to say it tomorrow. Something like that would be appropriate. But, if not, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must inform the Committee under what power, under what Section of the Act, under what Army Regulation, this man was directed to Germany. If not, I shall have to consider the question of a writ of habeus corpus and how far it applies in Germany, and how it is that people can be illegally called up under statutory powers which have now expired.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Ramsden: I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. It seems, to me to provide that any National Service man who enters into a Regular engagement before he has completed his National Service liability shall not be required to complete his National Service liability on discharge from the Regular forces, for whatever reason. An Amendment in these terms is more appropriate to the National Service Acts where, were it desirable, it would be made applicable to all three Services. But I am not persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said that an Amendment in these terms is in the least desirable.
Whatever the merits of the case which the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee—and I do not propose to go into the merits of any particular case this evening—the power which we have, and which this Amendment would effectively destroy, is still necessary to prevent Regular service being used as a back door to get out of National Service.
I think that it will be widely accepted in the Committee that it would be wrong if people could easily use the right of enlisting as regular soldiers at a higher rate of pay in order to use the right of discharge to avoid a National Service obligation. There have been cases where this has been tried, and I am glad to say that there have been cases under which the power has been effectively exercised to prevent scrimshanking. I must say that, satisfied as I am of the need for this power, I cannot possibly recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hale: Where does the hon. Gentleman get the power from? Will he tell me under what power, under what Section, and under what instrument he demands the right to call up these people after they have been discharged from the forces? I say seriously to the Under-Secretary that if he is not prepared to give me the source of the authority for this power, we will try a writ of habeas corpus and see how it works.

Mr. Ramsden: The power lies in the National Service Act, 1948, under which a man who is called up in circumstances which are relevant here has to complete

his liability. I apologise for not being able to cite the Section.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Profumo: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Looking at the hour of the night, and at hon. Members opposite, this seems an appropriate moment to move this Motion. I am satisfied that we have made the progress that I had hoped we would tonight after a rather slow start. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that we have had a very useful debate. I am also aware of what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said earlier. Then, I disagreed with him, but now I agree with him. I hope that when we sit again the Committee will make the same progress, indeed rather more speedy progress, with the rest of the Bill.
I quite agree with the right hon. Member that this is a Bill of great importance and that we have it only once in five years. Let us not forget, however, that it has been looked at thoroughly by the Select Committee and has been recommitted to the House. Everything I and my hon. Friend have heard tonight, I assure the Committee, has been of value. I hope that if we now report Progress it will be to the general benefit of my hon. Friends and hon. and right hon. Members opposite and that when we sit again we shall make speedy progress. That is not merely a pious hope.

Mr. G. Brown: I think that this is the moment to report Progress. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman claims that this is the point he wanted to reach. However, we shall allow him to claim whatever he wants to claim. As to the future, he stated a hope. I want to put on record that we on this side of the Committee will deal with the rest of the Bill as we have dealt with this part—faithfully and properly in the interests of our constituents, dealing with every part of it and giving it just as much weight as it ought to have. So long as that is clearly understood, we shall, on those terms, agree with the Minister that we ought, at this stage, to call it a day.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. I understood that all the Amendments were to be called. I should like to know whether that applies to the new Clauses, Sir William?

The Deputy Chairman: We have not got as far as the new Clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — WELSH BOOKS (GRANT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

3.39 a.m.

Mr. John Morris: This House has been sitting for well over thirteen hours and now, at twenty minutes to four, it seems a not inappropriate time to discuss a subject which is very dear to my heart. I think that this is the first time that Welsh literature and Welsh books have been the subject of a debate in this House. It is a tribute to this Mother of Parliaments that while we roam the wide world on subjects of all sorts of abstruse matters here at this late hour—or very early hour—of the day we turn to the question of the survival of one of the oldest living languages in Europe.
We in Wales have to fight to preserve our own nationhood and our language is a very important facet of that nationhood. Unless we have a living language, literature cannot survive. At this juncture, I should like to pay a tribute to the enthusiasm to those in the world of Welsh publishing. They are not the great politicians; they are not the people who get publicity; but they are the practical men of our nation who are responsible to a great degree for the present spate of Welsh publishing.
These men have provided the inspiration for the books now produced in Wales, and in many instances they have provided the capital for their production. Many of them have, at great sacrifice, played a very great part in the production of books today and it has been for many of these people a labour of love. I hope that one day Wales itself will

pay honour to them. I am sure that when history looks back on the survival of the Welsh language it will give them the honour they so richly deserve.
In addition to the people who are playing a great part in Welsh publishing, I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister for his interest in this matter as a whole and also for coming here himself to reply to this debate at this hour. Every time I have discussed this matter with him he has shown a very great deal of interest in it. I am able, on behalf of the Union of Welsh Publishers, to convey to him their indebtedness to him for the sympathetic hearing which he always gives to them and, indeed, for being the Minister who has been responsible for raising the grant for Welsh books from £1,000 a year to £3,000 rising to £5,000. I hope most earnestly that when the present period of grant ends it will be extended. I hope that the Minister will consider that as well.
I think that the crux of the issue has been summarised in a leading article in the Western Mail. I have not the exact words with me, but its purport was that there would be little purpose in giving grants to a newly developed manifestation of the arts in Wales if the one tried and tested vehicle of cultural expression died; it would be a tragedy if the language in our books which we know and love so well withered away and died for lack of support.
I hope, in the brief time at my disposal, to confine this debate to the present grant and the way in which it is administered. I read only last night, to refresh my memory, the Ready Report We owe a great debt to those persons who took part in the preparation of that Report and also to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), who was one of the signatories of the Report.
It may well be that the provision of a greater number of schoolbooks is the answer on a long-term basis. Today, we cannot discuss the laying of the long-term foundations. I shall not go into the long-term prospects, but confine myself to the immediate prospects of providing a sufficient number of popular books for adults now. This is the immediate problem of today.
It is the University of Wales Press Board which administers these grants. The Minister has himself said, in reply to my questioning, that the board must proceed empirically, that there is no precedent for its activities and the way in which it administers the grants.
That makes it all the more important for hon. Members, who are the custodians of the public purse, to see that any statement that is made on their behalf, or in respect of their works, does not become a precedent for the future if it will be to the disadvantage of Welsh book publishing. One statement to which I took exception was in the Minister's Report, in which it is stated that new works only, as distinct from reissues and reprints, are eligible for grant.
I could understand that statement if the grant were very limited, as was the original grant of £1,000. But now, with a substantially larger grant, there should be no necessity to limit the grant to new books. One the other hand, if the money is not available, that is a case for increasing the amount of the grant. I am wondering whether that statement was made at the Minister's wish.
Many books are now out of print and to reprint, to reissue or to republish them would, in the majority of cases, be too great a risk from the publisher's point of view. One has only to refer to such names as Sir Owen M. Edwards, Daniel Owen, and T. Rowland Hughes to realise that no publisher would dare republish some of those books today. It is in that context that the Minister must say whether the statement to which I have referred will be a precedent for the future.
I could quote many other names. The travel books in the Crwydro series is a good example. Within a short while many of these books will be out of print and it will be a tragedy if a publisher cannot be found to reprint them because of lack of financial support.
The final decision as to which books will receive a grant rests with the University of Wales Press Board, and I do not question the way in which it reaches its decisions. But what is the yardstick by which it decides the amount which is to be allocated to each book, once it has reached a decision that a particular book shall receive a grant? We know that grants have been awarded in respect of

books of sums varying from £25 to £150. I would have preferred the Minister to have broken down those figures in his Report and to have told us how many books, without naming them, received £25, how many received £50, and how many received over £100. I would think, from what I have heard, that a far greater number received grants in the region of £50 to £60 than over £100.
The tests showed either that the grant is sufficient to make it worth while for a publisher to publish a book, or it should be sufficient to result in an appreciable reduction in the price of the book. A grant of £50 on a 2,000 edition represents only 6d. per copy. If the grant is only £25, naturally the amount per book will be even less. It will, of course, be 3d. per copy. Can the Minister say whether the amount of money allocated to specific books in the past has been sufficient to make the venture worth while?
It may well be that the University of Wales Press Board has been overcautious. I have heard that publishers—I hope that it will not recur, because of the amount of grant available—have asked the Press Board to lump several grants together for a certain book rather than spread out the money in penny packets of £25 for one book, £35 for another and, say, £50 for another.
Having regard to the tragic state of Welsh publications, it would be scandalous if the administration of affairs is such that hundreds of pounds has gone back to the Treasury at the end of a financial year. I should like to know whether that has happened. Obviously, the board is in difficulties. It does not know at the beginning of the financial year how many books it will get for grant or by what yardstick to allocate the money that is available. There will always be money left over at the end of the financial year. If that is the case, if substantial sums have not been used by the end of the financial year, I ask that the money may be carried over to the next year. That would solve the problem if it arises. If it is not possible to carry over the money, a supplementary grant might be allocated to books which already have received grants. A third possibility is that the money could be made available for the


specific printing of reprints which are not available for grant under the existing scheme.
There is scarcely time for me to discuss the giving of grants on an insurance principle whereby, if a book sells particularly well, the publisher might be prepared to pay back the grant, or part of it, to the Press Board. On the other hand, if a book sold badly, the publisher might use the insurance principle for a bigger grant at the end of the year. If the money that is available through the Treasury for the scheme is limited, would the Minister consider making a loan as opposed to a grant? If the publisher could double his sales, he could halve his costs. That is the crux of the matter.
In contrast, the smallness of an edition results in uneconomically high prices which, in turn, limits the number of buyers. If the Government could assure the publisher of a loan so that he could print 50 per cent. more books, the result would be a reduction in the price. A loan could be used to finance the stocking of books over a period of years, which would obviate the problem of a book being out of print within a few years, as now happens. The loan might be used to finance the keeping up of type, as certain religious denominations do for their hymn books. This, again, reduces the cost of a second edition.
I should like to know what is to be the future relationship of the Welsh Books Council, which has now been set up. The council is an organisation of local authorities based on the pattern of the Cardiganshire Book Association, of which I, as a Cardiganshire man, am proud. I should like to know how that organisation will tie up with the present scheme of Government grants. I understand that its main object to be to help authors. I hope that it will keep to this object and not enter into the realms of publishing, except in exceptional circumstances and in co-operation with publishers.
Publishing in Wales is a tender plant and we must be careful that it does not wilt away in the face of the strong blast of competition which might be unfair. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will be able to give encouragement to local authorities to support this

worthy cause of the Welsh Books Council and say that if it spends money in this way it will not suffer in the amount of grant it receives from the central Government.
Finally, in this Parliament we have discussed on many occasions the large-scale production of books for underdeveloped countries which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. He proposes to sell them cheaply, and this applies to scholastic and popular books. The price indicated is 1s. 6d. a copy. In the Civil Estimates the total sum of £400,000 is mentioned. History will mock us if, while providing these large sums for popular books overseas, at the same time we neglect the needs of one of the oldest living languages in Europe and a need on the doorstep of this Parliament.

3.56 a.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The fact that the House of Commons is sitting until after four o'clock in the morning to discuss the publishing of books in Welsh is itself significant. I am sure that both the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I, and, I trust, other people, will remind critics of that fact when it is suggested that Parliament at Westminster has no interest in the Welsh language.
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject, and I certainly do not demur at his having caused me to sit up through the night to reply, because he knows that I am closely interested in this and that I appreciate the kindness of his remarks at the beginning of his speech.
For the record, I should state just how this grant has grown. It was started in 1955, at the rate of £1,000 a year, and I was glad when it was possible for me to announce rather more than a year ago that it would be raised for 1960–61 to £3,000. It is £3,500 for the current year and it will rise by £500 a year to a maximum of £5,000 at the end of the five years. It will then come to an end, because it is felt—and we have gone into this very thoroughly with the publishers—that there should be a sufficient corpus of Welsh literature then to enable the publishers to continue their job of publishing books in Welsh and to pay their way.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the grant was wholly spent. The answer is that out of the £3,000 available in 1960–61 I understand that £475 was repaid to the Treasury at the end of the year. But I have said that the grant for the current year will be £3,500, and there is no necessity for any of that to be repaid unless it has not been spent.
The hon. Gentleman may ask why there should be any unspent, but that overlooks the difficulty of administering a grant like this. It must involve making offers of sums of money in relation to individual books. It is not possible to offer more money than is available and it always may be that some of the grant offered will not be taken up in the year in question. It is difficult to ensure that precisely that sum of money and no less is spent. If the hon. Member suggests that it is desirable that there should be a carry-over, I can only say, as a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the Treasury never look with favour on balances being accumulated in funds which are no longer under Treasury control. No special rule is being applied here; it is the ordinary rule. The total spent last year was £2,525, and £3,500 is available this year.
The hon. Member took exception to a statement which I made the other day about the grants being confined to new books, and reissues and reprints not being eligible. He probably agrees that the desirable aim is the provision of a greater amount of new reading material, and it would be a great pity if the money were spent in other directions, leaving not enough available for the publication of new books, because literature can live only if there is a constant flow of new books. One of the purposes of this grant is that boys and girls who have learned Welsh in school should be able to buy on the bookstalls and elsewhere, when they leave school and no longer have school books available, books in the language with which they are familiar.
I do not suggest that in no circumstances should a grant ever be made to a reissue or reprint. I feel sure that the University of Wales Press Board would not say that. These matters must be left to the board. I do not seek to interfere. If the board felt that there was a strong case on literary or

scholastic grounds for ensuring that a certain book was reprinted, the Government would not stand in the way, but it would be a pity if there were not sufficient money available for the new books.
The hon. Member asked whether the grants which are offered are large enough. I feel that they were not large enough until the grant was enlarged. When the grant was first made five years ago there were relatively few applications and the board was able to offer reasonably generous sums. As it became better known a larger number of applications flowed in, and necessarily the amounts of the offers had to be cut down. Two years ago, I felt that the scheme was rather failing in its purpose because within a limit of £1,000, when the number of applications was rising, the board was not in a position to make sufficiently substantial offers.
I think that the hon. Member will find that this has been transformed by the increase in the grant. At any rate, people who are very interested in the publication of books in Welsh have assured me that they have no complaint on that score and that this trebled grant has made it possible for the board to make adequate offers. That is certainly the Government's wish, and I trust that it will work out in that way.
I cannot say what is the board's yardstick, because this must be left to the board's judgment. It is an unenviable responsibility to have to carry. I should not like it, and I do not seek to determine any of these things. I can think of no body better qualified than the University of Wales Press Board to do this job, and I should like to feel that the hon. Member joins with me in thanking the board for what it has done.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the adoption of an insurance principle. I very much doubt whether there is any-thing in that. If a book sells so well that the publisher finds, in the end, that he could have published without need of grant, he will have the grant. He will be that much better off to get on with his job of publishing Welsh books. He will have that money in hand.
I have given some consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which I saw in the Western Mail, about an insurance scheme, but I very much doubt whether


that would be workable. Nevertheless, as far as the Government are concerned I do not want to say "No" to the Press Board if it thinks that there are any fresh ways of using the money.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that if a publisher could double the sales he could halve the cost. Whenever I am thinking about this subject, I always feel inclined to conclude that the best way in which the Welsh-speaking public can repay all those who are taking so much trouble about the publication of books in Welsh is to purchase more freely. Indeed, I have ventured to say in Wales that there is a certain danger of Welsh surviving only as a spoken language; and it is only Welsh-speaking people who, by the purchase of books in Welsh, can make sure that Welsh survives for the future as the written language and inspires further writing. That cannot be done by the Government. It can only be done by those willing to spend their money on the purchase of books in Welsh.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Welsh Books Council. I am not in a position to say anything more about that than he probably knows already. I have no responsibility there. The council is a project which, I understand, is not yet in being. It is a very interesting one. Whereas this grant is for the publishers, the Welsh Books Council want to make money available to the authors. That seems to be an admirable plan.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the position of local authorities. That really is a hypothetical question at the moment, because until the Welsh Books Council is in being it really is quite impossible for me to say whether it would be intra vires for a local authority to subscribe to it. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that it will be a satisfaction to him—is that if an organisation is brought into being of the character that it is intra vires for a local authority to contribute to it, I certainly would not wish to do anything to prevent that expenditure qualifying for rate deficiency grant. But beyond that I cannot go this morning, because the matter is still, as I say, somewhat hypothetical.
The difficulty is that sales are slow. I have a great admiration for the publishers who are risking their money and devoting their energies to the publication of books in Welsh. It is too speculative a venture at present. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Government have shown their good will not just in words, but in hard cash. But in the last resort it does not depend upon the Government or upon the publishers. It depends upon the Welsh people themselves. I hope that one result of this debate will be that the sales of new Welsh books and reprints will go up.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Four o'clock a.m.